High Street Station Mixed Use Development
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration Project Nos. RPD2018-01, ZC2018-01, DDA2018-01 and DA2018-01
prepared by City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021
prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. 180 North Ashwood Avenue Ventura, California 93003
July 2020
High Street Station Mixed Use Development
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration Project Nos. RPD2018-01, ZC2018-01, DDA 2018-01 and DA2018-01
prepared by City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021
prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. 180 North Ashwood Avenue Ventura, California 93003
July 2020
This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Initial Study ...... 1 1. Project Title ...... 1 2. Lead Agency Name and Address ...... 1 3. Contact Person and Phone Number ...... 1 4. Project Location ...... 1 5. Existing Setting ...... 1 6. Project Applicant’s Name and Address ...... 1 7. General Plan Designation ...... 4 8. Zoning...... 4 9. Description of Project ...... 4 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ...... 9 11. Required Approvals ...... 9 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...... 11 Determination ...... 11 Environmental Checklist ...... 13 1 Aesthetics ...... 13 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...... 17 3 Air Quality ...... 19 4 Biological Resources ...... 29 5 Cultural Resources ...... 33 6 Energy ...... 37 7 Geology and Soils ...... 41 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 49 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 61 10 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 67 11 Land Use and Planning ...... 73 12 Mineral Resources ...... 75 13 Noise ...... 77 14 Population and Housing ...... 97 15 Public Services ...... 99 16 Recreation ...... 103 17 Transportation ...... 105 18 Tribal Cultural Resources ...... 113 19 Utilities and Service Systems ...... 117 20 Wildfire...... 123 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...... 127 References ...... 129 Bibliography ...... 129 List of Preparers ...... 134
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration i City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
Tables Table 1 Project Summary ...... 6 Table 2 Project Construction Schedule ...... 8 Table 3 Proposed Project Employment Forecasts ...... 21 Table 4 Project Construction Emissions...... 23 Table 5 Project Operational Emissions ...... 25 Table 6 Proposed Project Construction Energy Usage ...... 38 Table 7 Project Compliance with Energy Efficiency Goals and Policies ...... 40 Table 8 SB 32 Scoping Plan Emissions Sector Targets ...... 54 Table 9 SB 32 Locally-Appropriate Project-Specific Threshold ...... 55 Table 10 SCE Energy Intensity Factors ...... 56 Table 11 Estimated Construction Emissions of Greenhouse Gases ...... 57 Table 12 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases ...... 58 Table 13 Construction Equipment Noise Standards ...... 79 Table 14 Residential HVAC Equipment Noise Standards ...... 80 Table 15 Exterior Noise Limits ...... 80 Table 16 Interior Noise Limits ...... 81 Table 17 Significance of Changes in Roadway Noise Exposure ...... 81 Table 18 Short-Term Sound Level Monitoring Results ...... 82 Table 19 24-Hour Sound Level Monitoring Results ...... 84 Table 20 Construction Noise Levels by Phase...... 86 Table 21 Mitigated Construction Noise Levels by Phase ...... 88 Table 22 Existing Plus Project Roadway and Railway Noise Levels ...... 92 Table 23 Cumulative Plus Project Roadway and Railway Noise Levels ...... 93 Table 24 Vibration Level for Construction Equipment ...... 94 Table 25 Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service ...... 106 Table 26 Project Weekday Peak Hour Trip Generation ...... 107 Table 27 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Levels of Service ...... 107 Table 28 Cumulative Development Projects Trip Generation ...... 109 Table 29 Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project AM and PM Peak Hour Levels of Service ...... 110 Table 30 Average Daily Wastewater Generation ...... 118 Table 31 Multiple Dry Years Water Supply and Demand ...... 119 Table 32 Average Daily Solid Waste Generation ...... 121
ii Table of Contents
Figures Figure 1 Regional Location ...... 2 Figure 2 Project Location ...... 3 Figure 3 Project Site Plan ...... 5 Figure 4 Sound Level Measurement Locations ...... 83
Appendices Appendix A Project Renderings Appendix B Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic/Stormwater Quality Report Appendix C Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Appendix D Traffic and Parking Study Appendix E Cultural Resources Assessment Report Appendix F Energy Calculations Appendix G Preliminary Geohazard Report Appendix H Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Appendix I Noise Data and Modeling Worksheets Appendix J Will-Serve Letters Appendix K Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Appendix L Response to Comments on the First Public Review Draft Appendix M Response to Comments on the Second Public Review Draft
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration iii City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
This page intentionally left blank.
iv Initial Study
Initial Study
1. Project Title
High Street Station Mixed Use Development Project Nos. RPD2018-01, ZC2018-01, DDA2018-01 and DA2018-01 2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Karen Vaughn, Community Development Director (805) 517-6281 4. Project Location
The project site is located along the south side of High Street, roughly in between Walnut Street and Magnolia Street, in the City of Moorpark in Ventura County, California. The project site’s Assessor Parcel Number (APN) is 512-0-090-115. Figure 1 shows the location of the site in the region and Figure 2 shows the project site in its neighborhood context. 5. Existing Setting
The project site is located along the south side of High Street in an area largely characterized by commercial uses. The site is currently developed with a non-operational granary warehouse and other non-operational industrial and commercial buildings. The site is surrounded by the railroad immediately to the south, one- and two-story office and retail buildings and Ventura County Fire Station 42 to the north and northeast, Metrolink transit parking to the east and south, and the one- story Moorpark Chamber of Commerce building and surface parking lot to the west. 6. Project Applicant’s Name and Address
Daly Group Inc. 31255 Cedar Valley Drive, Suite 323 Westlake Village, California 91362 Contact: Jasch Janowicz (805) 309-6100
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 1 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
Figure 1 Regional Location
2 Initial Study
Figure 2 Project Location
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 3 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
7. General Plan Designation
Downtown Specific Plan – Old Town Commercial (C-OT) 8. Zoning
Commercial Old Town (C-OT) (Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan) 9. Description of Project
The High Street Station Mixed Use Development (proposed project) involves development of 91 multi-family residential units, 15,018 sf of commercial development, and associated surface parking spaces. The project site is approximately 2.15 acres and is within the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan Area. Table 1 shows the project summary details. Figure 3 shows the proposed project’s site plan, and Appendix A shows conceptual renderings of the proposed project.
Residential Component The 91 multi-family residential units would be for-rent and would be constructed within four individual buildings located across the project site, each with a maximum of three floors. The proposed project would include 18 ground-floor studios, 26 one-bedroom units, 39 two-bedroom units, and 8 three-bedroom units. The residential portion of the project would include approximately 69,834 gross sf. The Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan and Zoning Code do not permit residential uses as part of mixed use developments in the Old Town Commercial (C-OT) zone; therefore, project entitlements include a zoning ordinance amendment to allow mixed residential/commercial uses on the project site.
Commercial Component The proposed project includes approximately 15,018 sf of commercial retail space. Of that total, 6,618 sf would be standalone commercial space in three separate buildings surrounding the proposed village green. A brewery, winery or similar use is anticipated to occupy the 3,824-sf commercial building located immediately south of the village green; restaurants or similar uses are anticipated to occupy the 1,386-sf commercial building located immediately east of the village green the approximately 1,408-sf commercial building located west of the village green. In addition to the commercial space surrounding the village green, the proposed project includes approximately 8,400 sf of ground-floor commercial space (including retail and office uses) along High Street within the four residential buildings.
Landscaping and Public Recreational Space An outdoor village green is proposed in the central portion of the site, south of the High Street/Bard Street intersection. The village green would be open to the public and would be used as a recreational amenity by on-site residents and patrons of the commercial uses. Streetscape landscaping is proposed along the project frontage within both the project site and the public right- of-way and additional areas of landscaping are proposed in the western portion of the site near the intersection of High Street and Walnut Street, around each building, and along the southern boundary of the property.
4 Initial Study
Figure 3 Project Site Plan
Source: Dicecco Architecture Incorporated 2018
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
Table 1 Project Summary
Component Building Area (sf) Height
Residential 69,834 35’ (3 floors) Commercial 15,018 Circulation 8,870 Private Open Space 6,542
Total 98,812 Landscaping Village Green 7,178 Parking Spaces Residential 139 spaces Commercial and Provided on High Street and in shared Guest City-owned parking lots off-site
Total 139 spaces
The site currently contains 17 mature trees that include palm, cypress, ash, and pepper trees. Some of the mature trees on-site would be removed over the course of construction activities, but the project would preserve the existing pepper trees along High Street, which are designated Ventura County Landmark #72 (County of Ventura 2016), and the existing large ash trees along the southern portion of the property. The City of Moorpark Tree Preservation Guidelines (Moorpark Municipal Code 12.12.060) would be enforced to ensure the pepper trees are not impacted by nearby construction. During construction, conditions of approval would require the establishment of a physical barrier (flagging or see-through safety fencing) to be installed around any adjacent pepper trees that are situated near any mechanized equipment. Continued pepper tree maintenance would be completed in accordance with the City’s California Pepper Trees Maintenance Plan (2006b).
Access and Parking Two vehicle access driveways are proposed, one at the High Street/Walnut Street intersection and another approximately 230 feet east of the High Street/Bard Street intersection. Sidewalks and streetscape landscaping are proposed along High Street, providing pedestrian access to the project. Additional emergency access to the site could also be available from the existing Metrolink parking lot adjacent to the eastern project boundary or the existing Chamber of Commerce parking lot adjacent to the western project boundary. The project includes 139 on-site parking spaces that will be assigned as reserved parking to serve the residential units, per Section 2.2.5.5.d of the Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP). The site would also provide up to 26 on-street parking spaces along its High Street frontage that would be counted toward the required parking per Section 3.8 of the DTSP. Residential guest parking and parking to serve the commercial component would occur within public parking areas in the downtown area, including public parking lots and street parking.1
1 According to the Downtown Moorpark Parking Study prepared by Walker Consultants in December 2019, maximum utilization of the 914 available parking spaces in downtown Moorpark only reached 40 percent during peak times.
6 Initial Study
In 2019, the City of Moorpark prepared a Downtown Parking Study to quantify and analyze public parking assets within Downtown Moorpark. The Study identified a total of 914 public parking spaces (on-street and surface lots) within a ½-mile radius of the Project site. During peak weekday times, only 40% of available downtown parking was utilized. As noted in the Study, downtown parking utilization is well below the industry target of 85% and the City has significant capacity to absorb the remaining guest and commercial visitor parking generated by the Project Vehicle loading and unloading and trash collection areas would be provided behind the proposed commercial buildings and along High Street.
Interpretive Display As part of the project design, the proposed project would incorporate an interpretive display into a portion of the proposed commercial storefront space. The display would include information about the history of downtown Moorpark.
Stormwater Control Measures Storm drain inlets will be integrated into parking areas and new Low Impact Development (LID) Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be integrated into the building, landscaping, streetscape, and parking lot areas. Storm drain inlets would be collected by a new on-site storm drain system, which would discharge into the existing storm drain within High Street and ultimately drain to Moorpark Storm Drain No. 1. As described in the Preliminary Hydrologic and Hydraulic/Stormwater Quality Report (Hydrology Report), site-specific LID BMPs would be integrated into the project in compliance with the 2011 Ventura County Technical Guidance Manual (2011 TGM) (Appendix B). The design of grading and drainage plans for the proposed project were based on the following hydrologic and water quality impact reduction strategies: ▪ Site Planning: The project has been designed in a manner that would effectively disconnect impervious surfaces such that five percent Effective Impervious Area is achieved; ▪ Protect and Restore Natural Areas: Natural areas were proposed to the maximum extent feasible by the inclusion of a pervious village green and pervious paving/landscaping within the streetscape; ▪ Source Control Measures: Storm drain signage would be added to all drain inlets along with the design of outdoor trash storage areas in compliance with MMC standards; ▪ Treatment Control BMPs: Stormwater treatment would be divided into three areas, including the treatment of roof areas, treatment of parking/drive-aisle areas, and treatment of street frontage areas. The treatment of building roof runoff would be accomplished through the inclusion of flow-through planter boxes adjacent to proposed buildings. The planter boxes will be sized to treat the full stormwater quality design volume specified in the 2011 TGM. The treatment of parking/drive-aisle runoff would be accomplished through the inclusion of bio- retention areas with underdrains and pervious paving within the southern portion of the site. The treatment of street frontage areas would be accomplished by integrating a biofiltration basin into the proposed pedestrian “bulb-out” near the intersection of High Street and Bard Street and by integrating “StormTreat” linear stormwater filtration devices into the proposed High Street streetscape landscaping plans. ▪ Flood Control Detention: The project would reduce the post-development flow rate by 0.92 cubic feet per second (cfs) by including 175 feet of oversized 48-inch drain pipe in the western drainage area and 65 feet of 36-inch pipe within the eastern drainage area.
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 7 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
Demolition and Construction Activities Project demolition and construction would occur over the course of approximately 13 months. A breakdown of the construction schedule is provided in Table 2. Table 2 Project Construction Schedule
Phase Number of Working Days
Site Demolition 20
Site Preparation 3
Building Construction and Grading 226
Architectural Coating1 129
Paving 10
1 The architectural coating phase would overlap with the building construction phase and extend one month past the end of the building construction phase. Architectural coating would occur as individual units and buildings are completed; therefore, architectural coating activities would not be continuous over the 129-day period. Rather, architectural coating activities would likely be completed in two- to three-week increments.
As part of project construction, the existing vacant granary, restaurant, and industrial buildings on- site would be demolished. To the extent feasible, building materials from select existing buildings would be salvaged, stored on-site, and re-used as part of new construction. The project site is relatively flat; however, on-site grading in the form of removal and recompaction would occur across the entire site along with geologic hazard remediation (see Section 7, Geology and Soils). Wet and dry utilities would also be installed as part of site improvements. Other off-site improvements would include connections to existing wet and dry utilities on or adjacent to the project site, and streetscape improvements along the existing High Street right-of-way, including landscaping, addition of sidewalk bulb-outs, and enhancements to sidewalk and crosswalk paving, street furniture, and the existing Gazebo, Camino Real Bell, and Memorial Bricks. Project construction would involve removal of several existing mature trees on-site; however, the existing pepper trees along High Street would be preserved in place. The project’s grading plan would not disrupt or remove structural feeder roots and would not fill, cut, or compact soils within the dripline. If necessary, the project contractor would work with a consulting arborist during grading and construction to avoid impacts to existing pepper trees. It is likely that portions of the existing sidewalk would need to be temporarily closed during construction activities. However, access to the existing Metrolink train platform would remain open during construction by allowing pedestrian access along properties immediately to the east because these properties currently provide direct access and vehicle parking for the Metrolink train platform. In addition, during construction of the proposed project, activities would be restricted to the project site and would not interfere with roadway traffic or use of the railroad. The project would also be subject to standard conditions of approval, which require the use of flagmen, temporary signage, and traffic calming measures, if necessary, during temporary construction activities.
8 Initial Study
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The Moorpark Metrolink Station Platform is located adjacent to the southeastern portion of the project site. Office, restaurants, theatre, retail uses and Ventura County Fire Station No. 42 are located immediately north of the project along High Street. Single-family and multi-family residences and the Tafoya Terrace Senior Housing Complex are located further north and northwest of High Street. Additional residential uses are also located south of the railroad tracks. 11. Required Approvals
The City of Moorpark is the lead agency for this project. The proposed project requires consideration of the following entitlements by the City of Moorpark: ▪ Zoning Map Amendment to apply Mixed-Use Overlay Zone designation to the project site (Project No. ZC2018-01) ▪ Residential Planned Development Permit for conditions of approval for architecture and site development activities (Project No. RPD2018-01) ▪ Disposition and Development Agreement for the transaction of the land from the City to the Developer (Project No. DDA2018-01) ▪ Development Agreement for the terms of development (Project No. DA2018-01)
A Lot Line Adjustment may be required to ensure that proposed buildings do not cross property lines. Conditional Use Permits may be required for individual businesses proposed within the on-site commercial spaces. Furthermore, the project proposes to encroach into approximately 20 feet of the railroad right-of-way. This encroachment would require approval and recordation of a joint use agreement between the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC), Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) and the City of Moorpark.
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 9 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
This page intentionally left blank.
10 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and □ Air Quality Forestry Resources ■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources □ Energy
■ Geology/Soils □ Greenhouse Gas ■ Hazards & Hazardous Emissions Materials □ Hydrology/Water Quality □ Land Use/Planning □ Mineral Resources
■ Noise □ Population/Housing □ Public Services
□ Recreation ■ Transportation ■ Tribal Cultural Resources
□ Utilities/Service Systems □ Wildfire ■ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Determination Based on this initial evaluation: □ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
■ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “less than significant with mitigation incorporated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 11
Environmental Checklist Aesthetics
Environmental Checklist 1 Aesthetics Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? □ □ ■ □ b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? □ □ □ ■ c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? □ □ ■ □ d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? □ □ ■ □ a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? A significant impact would occur if the project would introduce incompatible visual elements within a field of view containing a scenic vista or substantially block views of a scenic vista. Scenic vistas are generally described in two ways: panoramic views (visual access to a large geographic area, for which the field of view can be wide and extend into the distance) and focal views (visual access to a particular object, scene, or feature of interest). According to Figure 1 of the Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element of the City of Moorpark General Plan (1986), the project site is located in an urbanized area of the City and is not within a designated scenic viewshed. The proposed project would involve demolition of existing one, two, and three-story commercial and industrial buildings and construction of two- and three-story buildings on-site. The proposed project would block a larger percentage of the sky as seen from adjacent commercial properties and residences south of the project site compared to the existing uses; however, the increased percentage of obstruction would be incremental compared to the existing uses within the overall
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 13 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development viewshed. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with the 35-foot height limit contained in the DTSP and the Old Town Commercial zoning (City of Moorpark 2006a). The proposed project also involves the development of a landscaped village green and streetscape, landscaped gathering spaces, and pedestrian walkways, which would not adversely affect scenic vistas. Therefore, impacts associated with scenic vistas would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The project site currently contains a vacant granary, vacant industrial buildings, vacant commercial buildings, associated paved and unpaved surfaces, and vacant land. The existing structures on the project site show signs of deterioration. Debris, trash, cracked pavement, and unpaved parking lots surfaced with dirt and gravel were also observed. The site also contains 17 mature trees that include palm, cypress, ash, and pepper trees. Some of the mature trees on-site would be removed over the course of construction activities, but the project would preserve the existing pepper trees along High Street, which are designated Ventura County Landmark #72 (County of Ventura 2016), and the existing large ash trees along the southern portion of the property. The City of Moorpark Tree Preservation Guidelines (Moorpark Municipal Code 12.12.060) would be enforced as a condition of project approval to ensure the pepper trees are not impacted by nearby construction. During construction, a physical barrier (flagging or see-through safety fencing) would be installed around any adjacent pepper trees that are situated near mechanized equipment. Additionally, the project’s grading plan would not disrupt or remove structural feeder roots and would not fill, cut, or compact soils within the dripline. If necessary, the project contractor would work with a consulting arborist during grading and construction. This would avoid impacts to Ventura County Landmark # 72. Continued pepper tree maintenance would be completed in accordance with the City’s California Pepper Trees Maintenance Plan (2006b). As discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, Rincon Consultants, Inc. concluded that the site is not considered a historical resource. Although the project would remove buildings and trees, none are designated as historic or scenic resources, and the project site is not located within the vicinity of a state scenic highway (California Department of Transportation 2011). Therefore, no impact related to scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur. NO IMPACT c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The project site is within an urbanized area of the City of Moorpark, and a significant impact would occur if the project would conflict with zoning or other regulations applicable to the project site, or otherwise substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and/or its surroundings. Significant impacts to the visual character of a site and its surroundings are generally based on the removal of features with aesthetic value, the introduction of contrasting urban features into a local area, and the degree to which the elements of the project detract from the visual character of an area.
14 Environmental Checklist Aesthetics
The project site currently contains a former granary, industrial and commercial buildings, associated paved surfaces, and vacant land. The existing structures show signs of deterioration and the site contains debris, trash, cracked pavement, and unpaved parking lots surfaced with dirt and gravel. Commercial development is located to the north across High Street. A surface parking lot for the Moorpark Metrolink Station is located to the east. The Moorpark Chamber of Commerce and its associated surface parking lot are located to the west. The Southern California Regional Rail Authority and Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way and a railroad are located immediately to the south. The project would not remove any of the existing ash trees or pepper trees along High Street. Pepper Tree maintenance would be completed in accordance with the City’s California Pepper Trees Maintenance Plan (2006b). In addition, the mature trees located in the VCTC’s right-of-way would be left in place. The proposed buildings would be similar in height when compared to the existing buildings. The project would also be consistent with the 35-foot height limit contained in the DTSP (City of Moorpark 2006a). The DTSP identifies existing planning issues causing visual impacts along High Street. The DTSP also includes policies for enhanced visual elements on commercial development, including landscaping, height and lighting restrictions, and other design features. The project design and architectural features would be consistent with the design guidelines contained in the DTSP for the Old Town Commercial (C-OT) zone. The project would substantially improve the visual quality and character of the project site by adding high-quality architecture, a plaza, and landscaping improvements to the site. See Appendix A for conceptual renderings of the project design. Accordingly, the project would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings or conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations. Shadow effects can also affect visual character and are dependent upon several factors, including the local topography, the height and bulk of a project’s structural elements, sensitivity of adjacent land uses, the time of day, season, and duration of shadow projection. The project would incrementally increase shading and shadows in the project vicinity due to increased height and massing on-site. However, no shade-sensitive land uses, such as residential areas, are located in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Therefore, impacts to visual character and quality would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? The project site is in an urbanized area with moderate levels of existing lighting. Primary sources of light adjacent to the project site include interior and exterior lighting associated with the existing commercial buildings, parking lots, street lights along High Street, and headlights from vehicles on the streets. The primary source of glare adjacent to the project site is the sun’s reflection from metallic and glass surfaces on existing buildings and vehicles parked on High Street. Exterior windows on the proposed building could incrementally increase the reflected sunlight during certain times of the day. Project lighting could incrementally increase evening light levels on adjacent properties due to a greater number of windows in the residential and commercial buildings when compared to the existing setting (i.e., industrial buildings and vacant land). The project would incorporate exterior lighting in the form of pedestrian walkway lighting, plaza lighting, building mounted lighting, and other safety-related lighting. The project would be required
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 15 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development to comply with MMC Chapter 17.30, which includes the following provisions for light and glare reduction: ▪ Shield or recess all lamps within the luminaire to prevent the visibility or the emission of light at or above the horizontal plane located at the bottom of the fixture ▪ Direct all luminaires away from all adjacent properties and streets/rights-of-way to avoid glare and spillover ▪ Utilize light poles that do not exceed 25 feet in height in all commercial zones ▪ Submit a plan for the outdoor lighting systems to the City’s community development director for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit
Compliance with MMC Chapter 17.30 would ensure that the additional light sources would not substantially change existing nighttime lighting conditions and consequently, would not have a significant impact on the night sky. Furthermore, the project would be required to adhere to lighting design guidelines for the Old Town Commercial Zone contained in Section 2.2.5.B.11 of the DTSP (City of Moorpark 2006a). Compliance with applicable standards in the MMC and the DTSP would ensure that impacts related to light and glare would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
16 Environmental Checklist Agriculture and Forestry Resources 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? □ □ □ ■ b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ ■ c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? □ □ □ ■ d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? □ □ □ ■ e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? □ □ □ ■ a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The project site is currently developed with a former granary, industrial buildings, and paved and unpaved surface parking lots. The project site is zoned Commercial – Old Town (City of Moorpark 2008).
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 17 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
The California Department of Conservation’s Important Farmland Finder shows that the project site is within an area of urban and built-up land and not within an area of prime or unique farmland (California Department of Conservation [CDOC] 2016). In addition, the project site and surrounding area are not zoned for agricultural use, and the project site and surrounding areas are not under any Williamson Act contract (CDOC 2015). Accordingly, the project would not conflict with agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract and would not result in the loss or conversion of on- or off-site agricultural land to non-agricultural use. Therefore, no impact to farmland would occur. NO IMPACT c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? The project site and the surrounding area are not zoned for forest land or timberland. Accordingly, the project would not conflict with forest land or timberland zoning, and the project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur. NO IMPACT
18 Environmental Checklist Air Quality 3 Air Quality Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? □ □ ■ □ b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? □ □ ■ □ c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? □ □ ■ □ d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? □ □ □ ■
Air Quality Standards and Attainment The project site lies within the South Central Coast Air Basin (the Basin), which is under the jurisdiction of the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD), the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD), and the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). The project site falls within the portion of the Basin overseen by VCAPCD. As the local air quality management agency, the VCAPCD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that State and federal air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether or not the standards are met or exceeded, the Basin is classified as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment.” The Basin is designated a nonattainment area for the federal and State eight-hour ozone standards and the State one-hour ozone and PM10 standards (VCAPCD 2017, California Air Resources Board [CARB] 2015). The Basin is in attainment of all other federal and State standards. Because the Basin currently exceeds these State and federal ambient air quality standards, it is required to implement strategies to reduce pollutant levels to recognized acceptable standards. This nonattainment status is a result of several factors, the primary ones being naturally adverse meteorological conditions that limit the dispersion and diffusion of pollutants, the limited capacity of the local airshed to eliminate air pollutants, and the number, type, and density of emission sources within the Basin. The VCAPCD Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (2003) also note San Joaquin Valley Fever (formally known as Coccidioidomycosis), as an air pollutant and disease of countywide concern. San Joaquin Valley Fever (Valley Fever) is an infectious disease caused by the fungus Coccidioides immitis. Infection is caused by inhalation of Coccidioides immitis spores that have become airborne when dry, dusty soil or dirt is disturbed by natural processes such as wind or earthquakes, or by human induced ground-disturbing activities such as construction, farming, or
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development other activities (VCAPCD 2003). From 2011 to 2015, the number of cases of Valley Fever reported in California averaged 3,611 with an average of 50 cases reported in Ventura County (California Department of Public Health 2016).
Air Quality Management Under State law, the VCAPCD is required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the VCAPCD is in non-compliance. The VCAPCD’s 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is an update of the previous 2007 AQMP. The 2016 AQMP, adopted on February 14, 2017, incorporates new scientific data and notable regulatory actions that have occurred since adoption of the 2007 AQMP, including the approval of the new federal 8-hour ozone standard of 0.070 ppm that was finalized in 2015. This Plan builds upon the approaches taken in the 2007 AQMP for the attainment of federal ozone standards and includes attainment and reasonable further progress demonstrations of the new federal eight-hour ozone standard (VCAPCD 2017).
Air Pollutant Emission Thresholds The 2016 AQMP provides a strategy for the attainment of State and federal air quality standards. The VCAPCD has adopted guidelines for quantifying and determining the significance of air quality emissions (VCAPCD 2003). The VCAPCD considers operational air quality impacts to be significant if a project would generate more than 25 pounds per day of ozone precursors reactive organic compounds (ROC) or nitrogen oxides (NOX). For all other criteria pollutants, the VCAPCD considers a significant adverse air quality impact to occur when a project measurably worsens an existing exceedance of a State or federal ambient air quality standard. Furthermore, construction-related air quality impacts are considered significant if fugitive dust emissions are generated in such quantities as to cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which may endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such person or the public. The VCAPCD considers a project to have a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact if project emissions exceed two pounds per day of ROC or NOX and if the project is inconsistent with the population forecasts contained in the AQMP. a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Based on the VCAPCD Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (2003), a significant air quality impact may occur if the project would cause the existing population to exceed the growth forecasts contained in the AQMP or if the project would be inconsistent with the emission reduction strategies contained in the AQMP. The 2016 AQMP was developed using the Southern California Association of Governments’ (SCAG) population forecasts contained in the 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS). Moorpark has a current population of 37,020 residents with an average household size of 3.32 persons (California Department of Finance [CDOF] 2019). SCAG forecasts that the population of Moorpark will grow to 43,000 residents by 2040, which is an increase of 5,980 persons (16 percent) relative to the 2019 population (SCAG 2016). Based on the current average household size in the City, the 91-unit project would add an estimated 302 residents. The proposed project would also generate approximately 88 jobs in the City, as shown in Table 3. Assuming conservatively that all employees would become new residents of Moorpark, project employees would create an additional population growth of 88 residents for a total estimated population growth of 390 residents. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would increase the City’s existing population to 37,410 residents (an increase of
20 Environmental Checklist Air Quality approximately one percent), which would be within SCAG’s 2040 population forecast for Moorpark (SCAG 2016).
Table 3 Proposed Project Employment Forecasts
Square Feet Total Use Area (sf) per Employee1 Employees
High Turnover (Sit Down) Restaurant 5,210 100 53
Coffee or Ice Cream Shop (Fast Food without Drive-Thru) 1,408 70 21
Ground Floor Commercial (Neighborhood Retail) 8,400 588 14
Total − − 88
1 Source: United States Green Building Council 2008.
SCAG estimates employment in the City to be 11,300 jobs in 2012 and forecasts employment to reach 16,600 jobs by 2040. Therefore, jobs are expected to increase in the City by approximately 5,300 between 2012 and 2040. Consequently, the employment increase generated by the proposed project would account for approximately 1.7 percent of projected job growth (88 out of 5,300 jobs) between 2012 and 2040 and would not exceed SCAG’s employment forecasts. The City currently contains approximately 11,410 housing units, and SCAG forecasts that the housing stock of Moorpark will reach 13,100 housing units by 2040 (CDOF 2019a, SCAG 2016). The 91-unit project would increase the City’s existing housing stock to 11,501 units, which is well within SCAG’s forecasts for the City. Based on the above, the project would not conflict with the growth forecasts contained in the 2016 AQMP, and the impact would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Based on the VCAPCD Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (2003), a project may have a significant impact if: ▪ A project would generate more than 25 pounds per day of ozone precursors reactive organic compounds (ROC) or nitrogen oxides (NOX). ▪ A project measurably worsens an existing exceedance of a state or federal ambient air quality standard. ▪ Fugitive dust emissions are generated in such quantities as to cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which may endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such person or the public.
The VCAPCD also considers a project to have a significant cumulative adverse air quality impact if project emissions exceed two pounds per day of ROC or NOX and if the project is inconsistent with the population forecasts contained in the AQMP.
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
The monitoring stations located closest to the project are the Thousand Oaks-Moorpark Road Station, which is located approximately 5.1 miles south of the project site, and the Simi Valley- Cochran Street Station, which is located approximately 11.0 miles east of the project site. The data collected at the stations indicates that the federal and State 8-hour ozone standards were exceeded in 2016 and 2017. The federal PM10 standard was exceeded in 2016, and the State PM10 standard was exceeded each year from 2015 to 2017. No other federal or State standards were exceeded at these monitoring stations between 2015 and 2017 (CARB n.d.).
Construction Emissions Construction activities associated with development would generate diesel emissions and dust. Construction emissions modeled include emissions generated by construction equipment used on- site and emissions generated by vehicle trips associated with construction, such as worker and vendor trips. It is assumed that all of the construction equipment used would be diesel-powered. The construction emissions associated with development of the project were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2016.3.2. CalEEMod was developed for use throughout the State in estimating construction and operational emissions from land use development. Emissions were based on parameters such as the duration of construction activity, area of disturbance, and anticipated equipment use during construction. Emissions were modeled assuming construction of a 91-unit mid-rise apartment building with a 0.92-acre building footprint and an associated surface parking lot. In addition, the project would construct approximately 15,018 sf of indoor commercial space with restaurants, a coffee or ice cream shop, and neighborhood-serving retail as the anticipated uses. The project would include a landscaped village green as well as other open space areas throughout the project site. The construction schedule and equipment were based on CalEEMod defaults, excluding the architectural coating phase, which was extended to reflect a more accurate construction schedule. The architectural coating phase was adjusted to last approximately half of the building construction phase because individual components of the building would be painted as they are completed. Based on applicant provided information and Google Earth approximations, 23,522 sf of existing buildings would be demolished. Based on the default CalEEMod assumption that haul trucks have an estimated 16-cubic-yard capacity, demolition would require 107 one-way haul trips. In addition, it was assumed the project would comply with all applicable regulatory standards, including VCAPCD Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust), Rule 74.2 62.7 (Asbestos – Demolition and Renovation), and Rule 74.2 (Architectural Coatings).
Estimated maximum daily ROC, NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 construction emissions are shown in Table 4. The VCAPCD considers construction-related air quality impacts to be significant if project construction would jeopardize attainment of the federal one-hour standard by generating more than 25 pounds per day of ROC or NOX (VCAPCD 2003). In addition, the City of Moorpark requires construction equipment operations to cease when an air pollution health advisory has been issued (Moorpark Municipal Code Section 17.76.050(11)). As shown in Table 4, project construction activities would not generate air pollutant emissions in exceedance of VCAPCD thresholds for ROC and NOX. Therefore, project construction would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, and construction-related emissions would be less than significant.
22 Environmental Checklist Air Quality
Table 4 Project Construction Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds per day)
Emission Source ROC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction Year 2020 2.7 22.4 18.0 < 0.1 7.6 4.3
Construction Year 2021 9.4 19.7 19.7 < 0.1 2.0 1.2
Maximum Daily Emissions 9.4 22.4 19.7 < 0.1 7.6 4.3
VCAPCD Thresholds 25 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A = Not available. The VCAPCD has not established recommended quantitative thresholds for CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5. Notes: All emission modeling was done using CalEEMod. See Appendix C for modeling worksheets. Some numbers may not add up due to rounding. Emission data is pulled from “mitigated” results, which account for compliance with regulations and project design features. Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions.
Construction activities, including site preparation and grading, would have the potential to release Coccidioides immitis spores. Nonetheless, the population of Moorpark has been and will continue to be exposed to Valley Fever from agricultural and construction activities occurring throughout the region. In addition, substantial increases in the number of reported cases of Valley Fever tend to occur only after major ground-disturbing events such as the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Construction of the proposed project would not result in a comparable ground disturbance and would not release a large number of spores. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not significantly increase the risk to public health above existing background levels. Although construction-related impacts would be less than significant because of their temporary nature, the VCAPCD recommends the following measures to minimize construction-related emissions. Implementation of the recommended measures below would also ensure that Coccidioides immitis spores are controlled to the maximum extent feasible.
In order to reduce impacts associated with NOX emissions (a precursor to ozone), the following measures shall be implemented: ▪ All commercial on-road and off-road diesel vehicles are subject to the idling limits of California Code of Regulations Title 13, Sections 2485 and 2449(d)(3), respectively. Construction equipment shall not idle for more than five consecutive minutes. The idling limit does not apply to: 1) idling when queuing; 2) idling to verify that the vehicle is in safe operating condition; (3), idling for testing, servicing, repairing, or diagnostic purposes; 4) idling necessary to accomplish work for which the vehicle was designed (such as operating a crane); 5) idling required to bring the machine system to operating temperature, and 6) idling necessary to ensure safe operation of the vehicle. ▪ Equipment engines should be maintained in good condition and in proper tune, as per manufacturer’s specifications. ▪ During the smog season (May through October), the construction period should be lengthened so as to minimize the number of vehicles and equipment operating at the same time.
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 23 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
▪ Alternatively fueled construction equipment, such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, or electric, should be used if feasible.
During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering, paving construction roads, or other dust- preventive measures using the following procedures: ▪ All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day, so that water penetrates sufficiently to minimize fugitive dust during grading activities. Reclaimed water should be used if available. ▪ All graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved roadways on-site, should be treated to prevent fugitive dust. Measures may include watering, application of environmentally-safe soil stabilization materials, and/or roll-compaction as appropriate. ▪ Graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site should be monitored at least weekly for dust stabilization. If a portion of the site is inactive for over four days, soil on-site should be stabilized. ▪ Signs should be posted limiting on-site traffic to 15 miles per hour. ▪ All clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 20 miles per hour averaged over one hour) so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. ▪ All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust pursuant to California Vehicle Code §23114. ▪ Respiratory protection shall be used by all employees in accordance with California Division of Occupational Safety and Health regulations. ▪ Measures to reduce the fungus that causes Valley Fever should include the following: Facemasks should be worn on employees involved in grading or excavation operations during dry periods to reduce inhalation of dust. Employment should be restricted to persons with positive coccidioidin skin tests. Crews should be hired from local populations where possible, since it is more likely that they have previously been exposed to the fungus and are therefore immune. Cabs of grading and construction equipment should be air-conditioned. Crews should work upwind from excavation sites. Construction roads should be paved. Weed growth should be controlled by mowing instead of discing. The access way into the project site should be paved or treated with environmentally- safe dust control agents during rough grading and construction.
▪ The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, and during construction activities, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled using the following procedures: ▪ All inactive portions of the construction site shall be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown.
24 Environmental Checklist Air Quality
▪ All active portions of the construction site shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
At all times, fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by assuring that streets adjacent to the project site shall be swept as needed to remove silt, which may be accumulated from construction activities so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Construction activities should utilize new technologies to control ozone precursor emissions as they become available and feasible. Streets must be swept at least once per day, preferably at the end of the day, if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads.
Operational Emissions Operational emissions associated with on-site development were also estimated using CalEEMod. Operational emissions would be comprised of area source emissions, energy emissions, and mobile source emissions. Area source emissions are generated by landscape maintenance equipment, consumer products, and architectural coating. Emissions attributed to energy use include electricity and natural gas consumption for space and water heating. Mobile source emissions are generated by the increase in motor vehicle trips to and from the project site associated with operation of on- site development. Trip generation rates from the Traffic and Parking Study prepared by Associated Transportation Engineers (Appendix D) were used to estimate mobile source emissions. Table 5 summarizes estimated emissions associated with operation of the project. Because the existing buildings on-site are not operational, the modeling assumed that no air pollutant emissions are currently generated on-site.
Table 5 Project Operational Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds per day)
Emission Source ROC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area 2.3 0.1 7.5 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1
Energy 0.1 0.7 0.5 < 0.1 0.1 0.1
Mobile 2.4 8.0 21.2 0.1 5.4 1.5
Total Project Emissions 4.7 8.8 28.7 0.1 5.5 1.6
VCAPCD Thresholds 25 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Threshold Exceeded? No No N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A = not applicable Notes: All emission modeling was done using CalEEMod. See Appendix C for modeling worksheets. Some numbers may not add up due to rounding. Emission data is pulled from “mitigated” results that include compliance with regulations and project design features that would be included in the project. Emissions presented are the highest of the winter and summer modeled emissions.
Project operational emissions would not exceed VCAPCD thresholds for ROC or NOX; therefore, the project would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Although project emissions would exceed the cumulative significance threshold of two pounds per day of ROC or NOX, the project is consistent with the population forecasts contained in the AQMP, as discussed in the response to question 3.a. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant.
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 25 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
In addition, the project would be required to comply with the design measures of Chapter 3.0, Circulation, Overall Site Development and Beautification, of the Moorpark DTSP, which would maximize the reduction of the project’s long-term operational emissions (City of Moorpark 1998a). Chapter 3.0 sets forth goals and policies to enhance bicycle circulation, improve pedestrian walkways, and augment bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the DTSP area, which would decrease the use of automobiles and thereby reduce mobile emissions from the project. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Sensitive receptors are members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. The sensitive receptors closest to the project site are residences located approximately 180 feet north of the project site along Charles Street and approximately 180 feet south across the rail line. According to the VCAPCD Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (2003), a CO hotspot screening analysis should be performed for any project with indirect emissions greater than the ozone project significance threshold of 25 pounds per day that may significantly impact roadway intersections that are currently operating at Levels of Service (LOS) E or F. A CO hotspot is a localized concentration of CO that exceeds the federal one-hour standard of 35.0 parts per million (ppm) or the federal and State eight-hour standard of 9.0 ppm (CARB 2016). The proposed project would generate maximum daily indirect mobile CO emissions of 24.2 pounds per day, which would not exceed the ozone significance threshold. Therefore, a CO hotspot screening analysis is not required. Furthermore, the Basin is in conformance with federal and State CO standards, and most air quality monitoring stations no longer report CO levels. No stations in the vicinity of the project site have monitored CO since 2004. In 2004, the Simi Valley-Cochran Street Station detected an 8-hour maximum CO concentration of 2.62 ppm, which is below the federal and State standard of 9.0 ppm (CARB n.d.). As shown in Table 5, the project would generate maximum daily CO emissions of approximately 35.4 pounds per day. Based on the low background level of CO in the project area, ever-improving vehicle emissions standards for new cars in accordance with federal and State regulations, and the project’s low level of operational CO emissions, the project would not result in the creation of new CO hotspots or contribute substantially to existing CO hotspots. Therefore, localized air quality effects related to CO hotspots would not occur, and impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant. The project would also introduce sensitive receptors to the project site because it would involve the development of residential units. However, no operational characteristics of the project or of surrounding development would expose future sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during operation of the project. Residential units would be located approximately 70 feet north of the rail line and 625 feet west of the Moorpark Metrolink Station. Although the CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook (2005) considers rail yards2 to be a major source of diesel particulate emissions, this guidance does not identify individual rail stations and rail lines as sources of concern. Therefore, the proximity of the project site to the rail line would not expose residents to unhealthy levels of toxic air contaminants. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
2 Rail yards are usually located near inter-modal facilities, which attract heavy truck traffic, and are often sited in mixed industrial and residential areas.
26 Environmental Checklist Air Quality d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Based on the VCAPCD Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (2003), a project may have a significant impact if a project would generate an objectionable odor to a degree that would cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to a considerable number of persons or to the public, or which would endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. Land uses and industrial operations known to emit objectionable odors include wastewater treatment facilities, food processing facilities, coffee roasters, fiberglass operations, refineries, feed lots/dairies, and composting facilities. Residential and commercial uses are not included on this list. Therefore, no impact related to objectionable odors or other emissions would occur. NO IMPACT
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 27 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
This page intentionally left blank.
28 Environmental Checklist Biological Resources
4 Biological Resources Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ ■ □ □ b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ □ ■ c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? □ □ □ ■ d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? □ □ ■ □ e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? □ □ □ ■ f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? □ □ □ ■
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 29 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City and has been previously disturbed in conjunction with on-site development. The project site contains a former granary, commercial and industrial buildings, associated paved surfaces, and vacant land. The surrounding properties have been developed with commercial and residential urban land uses as well as a railroad. Therefore, no wetland, riparian, or other sensitive natural communities or federal- or state-listed endangered, threatened, rare, or otherwise sensitive flora or fauna are located on or adjacent to the project site. There are mature trees on-site that could potentially serve as nesting habitat for raptors and other bird species, several of which would be removed over the course of construction activities. Nesting birds are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Title 33 U.S. Code Section 703 et seq.; see also Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations Part 10) and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code. Accordingly, the project applicant would be required to comply with mitigation measure BIO-1 to ensure that no significant impacts to nesting birds would occur. With mitigation, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
BIO-1 Habitat Modification (Nesting Birds, Non-Hillside or Urban Areas) Migratory nongame native bird species are protected by international treaty under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (50 C.F.R. Section 10.13). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit take of all birds and their active nests including raptors and other migratory nongame birds (as listed under the Federal MBTA). Because construction may occur during the bird breeding season (February 1 to August 31), the project is subject to bird survey requirements. Pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted to determine the locations of nesting birds. Bird surveys shall include a minimum of three nesting bird surveys to be conducted by a qualified biologist, over a two-week period with the third survey occurring no more than three days prior to the start of vegetation clearing. The nesting bird survey area shall include a buffer around the grading limits and land clearing limits of 500 feet to accommodate potential raptors that could be affected. If an active bird nest is found prior to land clearing activities, a maximum 300-foot buffer (depending on the species and noise and site conditions) shall be established surrounding the nest(s) and shall be flagged for avoidance. If any active raptor nests are found, a buffer area of 250 to 500 feet from the nest shall be established until after the young have fledged (i.e., the birds are no longer reliant on the nest). The avoidance buffer area for nesting birds may be reduced upon the approval of the monitoring biologist as determined by the species nesting and the activity being conducted. If an active nest of a special- status bird species is found, a suitable buffer area of 200 to 500 feet from the nest (depending on the status of the species) shall be established until the nest becomes inactive. If no active nests are identified during pre-construction nesting bird surveys, land clearing activities may commence with no limitation. If active bird nests are found and avoidance buffers are established prior to or during construction, a biologist shall monitor the active nest(s) during land clearing activities and/or construction activities to determine whether the recommended avoidance buffers are adequate to ensure that nesting activities are not being stressed or jeopardized. Land
30 Environmental Checklist Biological Resources disturbance may occur within the avoidance buffer area(s) only after the young have fledged (i.e., the birds are no longer reliant on the nest) as determined by the monitoring biologist. The methods and results of the nesting bird survey(s), any nesting bird avoidance efforts as a result of those surveys, and the success of the avoidance buffers shall be documented in a letter report (Nesting Bird Survey and Active Nest Monitoring Report) and shall be submitted to the City no later than three weeks following the completion of active nest monitoring activities. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The site is currently developed in an urban area lacking native biological habitat. No riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities are on or adjacent to the project site. Consequently, no impact to sensitive natural communities would occur. NO IMPACT c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? The project site is located in an urbanized area that is developed with commercial and residential uses. The project site does not contain any federally protected wetlands, wetland resources, or other waters of the United States as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The nearest jurisdictional feature is a freshwater emergent wetland along Arroyo Simi located approximately 0.6 mile east of the project site (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2018). Project construction, including demolition, site preparation, and grading activities, would be confined to the project site and would not impact off-site features. Therefore, the project would not affect state or federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means, and no impact would occur. NO IMPACT d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? The project site and surrounding area are urbanized and lack water features. However, the 17 mature trees on-site may serve as habitat for native migratory birds. The proposed project would leave in place the existing California pepper trees as well as several mature trees located in the VCTC’s right-of-way. In addition, the project would be required to comply with mitigation measure BIO-1 listed above under question 4.a. Therefore, the project would not interfere with wildlife movement or migratory corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, and no impact would occur. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 31 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Approximately 14 California pepper trees are present along the northern boundary of the project site. These trees, four of which are historic, are protected by the City of Moorpark’s California Pepper Trees Maintenance Plan (2006b). The project would leave these trees in place and would comply with the requirements of the California Pepper Trees Maintenance Plan, as discussed further under Section 1, Aesthetics; therefore, no impact would occur. NO IMPACT f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The project site is not located an area subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved conservation plans (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2017). Therefore, no impact would occur. NO IMPACT
32 Environmental Checklist Cultural Resources 5 Cultural Resources Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? □ □ ■ □ b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? □ ■ □ □ c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? □ ■ □ □ a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines a historical resource as: (1) a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, (2) a resource included in a local register of historical resources, (3) any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared a Cultural Resources Assessment Report for the High Street Station Mixed Use Development (see Appendix E). Included as part of the report, Rincon Consultants, Inc. completed a cultural resources records search, Native American consultation, and an intensive-level pedestrian survey and historic evaluation of the subject parcel. The results of the report are summarized below. The proposed project boundary encompasses a 2.15 acre parcel (Assessor Parcel Number: 512-0- 090-115). Five built environment resources were identified within the boundary of the proposed project and would be demolished. These include two large grain storage buildings constructed in 1956, an additional grain storage building (the facades of which were designed to mimic those of a historic railroad depot) constructed in 1979, and two industrial buildings constructed in 1954 and 1964. Based on the results of the cultural resources records search, Native American scoping, review of historical maps and aerials, and field survey, no known cultural resources were identified on the project site. See Appendix E for the full Cultural Resources Assessment Report. The site, inclusive of three granary structures and two commercial buildings, was evaluated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP) and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and as a City of Moorpark Landmark. The project site is not eligible for listing in the NRHP or the CRHR and does not satisfy the criteria for designation as a City of Moorpark Landmark due to a lack of historic
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 33 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development significance and numerous alterations, which have reduced the integrity of the structures. Therefore, the subject property is not considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. Although the project site is not considered a historical resource in accordance with CEQA, the proposed project site is bound to the north by a segment of Ventura County Landmark # 72, which consists of a row of pepper trees planted by early Moorpark settlers John Nubee and John Barrett in 1904. Although the proposed project would not impact these trees, due to their proximity to the project area, City of Moorpark’s Tree Preservation Guidelines (MMC 12.12.060) would be enforced to ensure they are not impacted by nearby construction. During construction, a physical barrier (flagging or see-through safety fencing) and other measures described above in Section 1, Aesthetics would be installed around any adjacent pepper trees that are situated near mechanized equipment. Additionally, the project’s grading plan would not disrupt or remove of structural feeder roots and would not fill, cut, or compact soils within the dripline. If necessary, the project contractor would work with a consulting arborist during grading and construction. Therefore, impacts to Ventura County Landmark # 72 would be avoided and impacts to historical resources would be less than significant. As discussed under Project Description, although the project would have less than significant impacts on historic resources and no mitigation is required, the project applicant has agreed to the inclusion of a project design feature as a condition of approval that incorporates an interpretive display discussing the history of the project site, its significance, and its important details and features into a portion of the proposed commercial storefront space. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in §15064.5? Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines defines significant archaeological resources as resources that meet the criteria for historical resources or resources that constitute unique archaeological resources. A project-related significant impact could occur if a project would significantly affect archaeological resources that fall under either of these categories. The project site is in an urbanized area and has been previously disturbed in conjunction with construction of the granary, industrial and commercial buildings, and paved surfaces. No known archeological resources or sites are located on the project site (City of Moorpark 1998a). However, archaeological resources, including rock shelters, pictographs, and basketry fragments, have been identified within a two-mile radius of the project site (Archaeological Research, Inc. 1977). The applicant proposes to implement ground improvement measures via the construction of sub-grade stone columns and overexcavation and recompaction, which will result in ground disturbance. Therefore, there is potential for archaeological resources to be discovered during project construction. Should resources be discovered, compliance with the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
CUL-1 Cultural Resources During ground-disturbing activities, an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) shall monitor excavation and ground-disturbing activities within native soils that have not been previously
34 Environmental Checklist Cultural Resources disturbed. If cultural resources are encountered during excavation and/or ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt, and a Native American representative who is ancestrally related to the project area must be contacted immediately to evaluate the find and consult with the City of Moorpark and the archaeologist. If the discovery proves to be significant under the National Historic Preservation Act, additional work such as data recovery excavation may be warranted.
CUL-2 Archaeological Resources The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground-disturbing activities. If human remains are found, the state of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Ventura County coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify an MLD. The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? A significant impact would occur if previously interred human remains would be disturbed during grading of the project site. While no formal cemeteries, other places of human interment, or burial grounds or sites are known to occur within the project area, there is always a possibility that human remains could be encountered during project construction. Should human remains be discovered during project construction, compliance with the mitigation measure prescribed below would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
CUL-3 Human Remains If human remains are encountered unexpectedly during construction demolition and/or grading activities, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. In the event that human remains are discovered during excavation activities, the following procedure shall be observed: ▪ Stop immediately and contact the Ventura County Coroner/Medical Examiner. ▪ If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the Coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). ▪ The NAHC will immediately notify the person it believes to be the Most Likely Descendent (MLD) of the deceased Native American. ▪ The MLD has 48 hours to make recommendations to the project applicant, or representative, for the treatment or disposition, with proper dignity, of the human remains and grave goods.
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 35 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
If the project applicant does not accept the descendant’s recommendations, the project applicant or the descendent may request mediation by the NAHC. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
36 Environmental Checklist Energy 6 Energy Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? □ □ ■ □ b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? □ □ ■ □
Energy consumption accounts for energy consumed during construction and operation of the proposed project, such as fuel consumed by vehicles, natural gas consumed for heating and/or power, and electricity consumed for power. The analysis of energy consumption herein involves the quantification of anticipated vehicle and equipment fuel, natural gas, and electricity consumption during construction and operation of the proposed project, to the extent feasible, as well as a qualitative discussion of the efficiency, necessity, and wastefulness of that energy consumption. a. Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Construction Project construction and demolition activities would require energy resources primarily in the form of fuel consumption to operate heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators. Temporary power may also be provided for construction trailers and electric construction equipment. Table 6 summarizes the anticipated energy consumption from construction equipment and vehicles, including construction worker trips to and from the project site. As shown in Table 6, construction of the project would require approximately 10,177 gallons of gasoline and 35,723 gallons of diesel fuel. Energy use during construction would be temporary in nature, and construction equipment used would be typical of similar-sized construction projects in the region. In addition, the project would utilize construction contractors who demonstrate compliance with applicable CARB regulations that restrict the idling of heavy-duty diesel motor vehicles and govern the accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy-duty diesel on- and off-road equipment. Electrical power would be consumed to construct the project, and the demand, to the extent required, would be supplied from existing electrical infrastructure in the area. Overall, demolition and construction activities would require minimal electricity consumption and would not be expected to have any adverse impact on available electricity supplies or infrastructure. Construction activities would
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 37 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development utilize fuel-efficient equipment consistent with state and federal regulations and would comply with state measures to reduce the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. In addition, per applicable regulatory requirements, the project would comply with construction waste management practices to divert construction and demolition debris. These practices would result in efficient use of energy necessary to construct the project. Furthermore, in the interest of cost efficiency, construction contractors would not utilize fuel in a manner that is wasteful or unnecessary. Therefore, project construction would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and impacts would be less than significant.
Table 6 Proposed Project Construction Energy Usage Fuel Consumption (Gallons) Source Gasoline Diesel Construction Equipment & Hauling Trips − 35,723
Construction Worker Vehicle Trips 10,177 −
See Appendix C for CalEEMod default values for fleet mix and average distance of travel, and Appendix F for energy calculation sheets.
Operation Energy demand from project operation would include fuel consumed by passenger vehicles; natural gas consumed for heating residences and commercial buildings; and electricity consumed by residences and commercial buildings including, but not limited to lighting, water conveyance, and air conditioning. In accordance with Section 150.1(c)14 of the 2019 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards, the project would install solar panels on all residential buildings.
Transportation Vehicle trips associated with the residential portion of the project would require approximately 97,456 gallons of gasoline and 19,995 gallons of diesel fuel annually (Appendix F). The proposed mixed-use development would integrate residential, commercial/retail, and recreational uses on- site in such a manner that would reduce the need for residents to travel off-site. The proposed live/work units would also reduce the need for residents to commute to employment opportunities elsewhere in the region. In addition, the proposed project would be located in close proximity to existing commercial/retail, recreational, and institutional land uses, which would reduce trip distances and encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation such as biking and walking. The project site is also located within 200 feet of the Moorpark Metrolink rail station and the Moorpark bus stop for the Moorpark City Transit Routes 1 and 2 and VCTC’s East County and East- West Connector bus lines and would therefore provide opportunities for residents to use public transit rather than personal automobiles. These factors would minimize the potential of the project to result in the wasteful or unnecessary consumption of vehicle fuels. The proposed project would introduce new restaurant and retail uses to an existing commercial corridor, and new retail development in an existing commercial corridor typically redistributes existing shopping trips rather than creates new trips. Therefore, local-serving retail development generally shortens trip distances and reduces overall vehicle miles travelled, thereby resulting in lower regional fuel consumption due to more efficient transportation and land use planning (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 2018). Furthermore, fuel consumed by future residents,
38 Environmental Checklist Energy employees, and patrons of the proposed project would be reduced over time as a result of California’s increasingly stringent vehicle efficiency standards. Given the mixed-use and local-serving nature of the proposed project and its location within an existing commercial corridor in close proximity to transit, vehicle fuel consumption resulting from the proposed project would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary, and impacts would be less than significant.
Built Environment In addition to transportation energy use, the proposed project would require permanent grid connections for electricity and natural gas. Approximately 685,421 kWh of electricity would be used for lighting and large appliances within the commercial and residential components of the project. Approximately 2,773 MMBtu per year of natural gas would be used primarily for heating the proposed buildings (Appendix C). Construction of the proposed residences and commercial buildings would comply with the 2019 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non- residential Buildings and CalGreen (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Parts 6 and 11). These standards require the provision of electric vehicle supply equipment, water-efficient plumbing fixtures and fittings, recycling services, and other energy-efficient measures. This code was developed to (1) reduce greenhouse gas emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the environmental directives of the State administration. Moreover, California’s 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, with which the project must document compliance, were specifically adopted to reduce wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy and to enhance outdoor and indoor environmental quality. It is estimated that commercial buildings built to the 2019 standards will use about 30 percent less energy due to compliance (California Energy Commission 2018). In addition, as discussed in Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards require installation of solar photovoltaic systems for multi-family residential buildings of three stories and less, which would supply much of the on-site electricity demand. Therefore, energy consumed by the built environment would not be inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary, and impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Table 7 provides energy efficiency goals and policies provided in the Ventura County General Plan and summarizes the project’s compliance with these policies.
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 39 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
Table 7 Project Compliance with Energy Efficiency Goals and Policies Energy Efficiency Goal or Policy Does the Project Comply? Goal 1.9.1(2): Encourage the use of renewable sources of Yes. The project will utilize electricity from Southern energy and energy conservation techniques in new California Edison (SCE). SCE provided 32 percent development. renewable energy in 2017, which is higher than the California average of 29 percent (SCE 2018a). Policy 1.9.2(2): Land use policies in area plans should be Yes. The project would construct a compact mixed-use developed to promote energy conservation and should development with commercial and residential uses. The include the following: project site is less than 0.5 miles from transit stations 1) The pattern of residential, commercial and industrial (train and bus). Additionally, the project site is currently a land use should be compact, relate to transit routes partially vacant lot with unused industrial buildings and centers and minimize vehicular travel. surrounded by commercial and residential developments. By design, this project complies with this policy. 2) The infill of vacant lots should be encouraged over step-out developments. Policy 1.9.2(4): The Building and Safety Division shall Yes. The project will be constructed in compliance with continue to implement Title 24 energy efficiency applicable building codes, including energy efficiency standards for buildings. standards for new residential and commercial buildings. Policy 1.9.2(5): Tentative subdivision maps shall provide, Yes. The project site will maintain a number of trees to the extent feasible, for passive or natural heating or surrounding proposed on-site buildings, which would cooling opportunities in the subdivision. reduce some of the electricity and natural gas requirements, as they provide shading in the summer (reducing air conditioning needs) and insulation in the winter (reducing heating needs).
As shown in Table 7, the project would be compliant with applicable energy efficiency goals and policies. Therefore, potential impacts associated with renewable energy and energy efficiency would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
40 Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils 7 Geology and Soils Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Directly or indirectly cause potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? □ □ □ ■
2. Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ ■ □ 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? □ ■ □ □
4. Landslides? □ □ □ ■ b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? □ ■ □ □ c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is made unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? □ ■ □ □ d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? □ □ ■ □ e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? □ □ □ ■ f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? □ □ ■ □
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 41 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
A Preliminary Geohazard Report for various City-owned properties in Moorpark was prepared by Oakridge Geoscience, Inc. in January 2018 (Appendix G). This report contains an evaluation of the project site as two separate parcels identified as “Apricot Farms” and “Remainder High Street.” The report evaluates seismic-related geohazards and discusses potential methods to mitigate potential geohazards. The following analysis is based in part on this geohazard report. The applicant proposes to implement ground improvement via construction of sub-grade stone columns under the building footprints and overexcavation and recompaction of soils to a depth deemed sufficient by the project applicant’s geotechnical engineer. These measures would remediate on-site geological hazards related to liquefaction, collapse potential, and expansive soil conditions. a.1. Directly or indirectly cause potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Similar to all of southern California, the project site is subject to strong ground shaking associated with active and/or potentially active faults in the region. The project site is not within an Alquist- Priolo Special Study Zone. No active or potentially active faults cross or trend toward the downtown Moorpark Area (Appendix G). Furthermore, the project would include new development built to current seismic safety standards. Therefore, no impact would occur. NO IMPACT a.2. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? The entire southern California region is susceptible to strong ground shaking from severe earthquakes. Consequently, development of the project could expose people and structures to strong seismic ground shaking. However, the project would be designed and constructed in accordance with state and local building codes to reduce the potential for exposure of people or structures to seismic risks to the maximum extent possible. The project would be required to comply with the seismic safety requirements in the International Building Code (IBC), the California Building Code (CBC), and the Moorpark Municipal Code (MMC). Compliance with such requirements would reduce seismic ground shaking impacts to the maximum extent practicable with current engineering practices. Further, the project would not increase ground shaking hazards at adjacent properties. Therefore, impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a.3. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? For the purpose of this specific issue, a significant impact may occur if the project site is located in an area identified as having a high risk of liquefaction. The geohazard report determined that on-site soils are composed of very loose to medium dense granular soils. Groundwater was encountered at depths of 20 to 38 feet, and historic high groundwater levels were determined to be about 15 to 20 feet. The report concludes that the site is susceptible to liquefaction below the groundwater level to
42 Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils depths of 60 to 70 feet with a combined estimated liquefaction and dry seismic settlement of between 7.5 and 14.5 inches. The CBC requires projects to have a seismic settlement of no more than two inches total and one inch of differential settlement. Therefore, impacts related to liquefaction and seismic-induced settlement would be potentially significant. However, as the geohazard report recommended, the project would implement ground improvement via construction of sub-grade stone columns under the building footprints and overexcavation and recompaction of soils to a depth deemed sufficient by the project applicant’s geotechnical engineer. The project would be required to implement mitigation measure GEO-1 to reduce the potential for on-site liquefaction. In addition, the project would be required to implement mitigation measure GEO-2 to reduce the potential for foundation damage due to on-site storm water infiltration. These measures, which were recommended by the geohazard report, would mitigate impacts related to liquefaction to a less than significant level. The project would be required to comply with current engineering practices as reflected in the MMC, the UBC, and the CBC. The CBC and UBC regulate the design and construction of excavations, foundations, building frames, retaining walls, and other building elements to mitigate the effects of adverse soil conditions. The MMC requires that a liquefaction remediation plan containing effective measures to avoid and control damage be submitted to the city engineer and public works director prior to the issuance of a grading permit in accordance with MMC Section 17.76.050.41. In addition, a final approved soils and geology report must be submitted to the city engineer, public works director, and the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology within 30 days of report approval. Compliance with City and state building codes and mitigation measure GEO-1 would reduce impacts to the maximum extent practicable through current engineering practices. Impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measure
GEO-1 Ground Improvement In accordance with recommendations made by the geohazard report, the applicant shall complete ground improvement activities to reduce the potential for liquefaction and dry seismic settlement on-site to near two inches of total settlement and one inch of differential settlement. The ground improvement options are as follows: ▪ Vibro Replacement (VR, also referred to as “stone columns”) consists of advancing a vibroflot to the selected depth (approximately 50 feet for the project site) using a combination of the weight of the vibroflot assembly and vibration; or ▪ Deep Soil Mixing (DSM) utilizes a large diameter auger mounted to a large drill rig or crane to advance the auger to the target depth. Cement is mixed into the soil at a regulated rate of around 10 percent and mixed by the auger using several up and down passes of the auger. The amount of cement added to the soil is determined by laboratory testing and/or previous experience to optimize the soil strength versus amount of cement utilized.
A specialty ground improvement contractor shall prepare a site-specific ground improvement plan (GIP) that indicates the method and depth of treatment, size and spacing of the ground improvement columns, quality control procedures, and post-treatment CPT testing program (assuming VR method) to document ground improvement has densified the soils to reduce
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 43 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development settlement during a seismic event to acceptable levels. The GIP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Moorpark’s geotechnical reviewer prior to issuance of grading permits.
GEO-2 Stormwater Infiltration In accordance with recommendations made by the geohazard report, the applicant shall locate any on-site concentrated stormwater infiltration basins at least 100 feet away from project structural elements and off-site improvements (i.e., buried utilities) that could be impacted by settlement. Alternatively, the applicant may instead use a diffuse infiltration system that does not concentrate infiltration in a specific location. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED a.4. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? A significant impact would occur if the project would be implemented on a site located in a hillside area with unstable geological conditions or soil types that would be susceptible to failure when saturated. According to the geohazard report, the project site is relatively flat with a slope of about one percent to the southwest (Appendix G). The project site is located near the base of a gently- sloping hillside area that has not been identified as a landslide area (City of Moorpark 2001, Figure 4-3). Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to potential effects resulting from landslides and no impact would occur. NO IMPACT b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? A significant impact would occur if construction activities or proposed uses would result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Construction of the project would result in ground surface disturbance during site clearance and grading, which could create the potential for soil erosion. Accordingly, short-term erosion impacts may result from construction of the project. As discussed in the response to question 7.a.4 above, the project site is located in a relatively flat area, which would limit potential erosion impacts. Implementation of mitigation measure GEO-3 would reduce project construction-related impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
GEO-3 Erosion/Grading/Short-Term Construction Impacts ▪ The applicant shall provide staked signage at the site with a minimum of three-inch lettering containing contact information for the City Engineer (Department of Public Works) and the hauling or general contractor. ▪ Excavation and grading activities shall be scheduled during dry weather periods, if possible. If grading occurs during the rainy season (October 15 through April 1), diversion dikes shall be constructed to channel runoff around the site. Channels shall be lined with grass or roughened pavement to reduce runoff velocity. ▪ Stockpiles, excavated, and exposed soil shall be covered with secured tarps, plastic sheeting, erosion control fabrics, or treated with a bio-degradable soil stabilizer. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
44 Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is made unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? See the responses to questions 7.a.3 and 7.a.4 for discussions related to liquefaction and landslide potential, respectively. Subsurface borings were advanced to a depth of 51.5-feet on-site. Site soils, as depicted in the boring logs contained in the geohazard report (Appendix G), consist of very loose to medium dense granular soils. Groundwater was encountered at depths of 20 to 38 feet, and historic high groundwater levels were determined to be about 15 to 20 feet. The geohazard report determined that soils on the western portion of the project site have a moderate collapse potential of 3.5 to 6.7 percent to a depth of 15 feet, while the eastern portion of the site has a low collapse potential of 0.1 to 0.3 percent. Therefore, impacts related to collapse would be potentially significant. However, as the geohazard report recommended, the project would implement ground improvement via construction of sub-grade stone columns under the building footprints and overexcavation and recompaction of soils to a depth deemed sufficient by the project applicant’s geotechnical engineer. In addition, the project would be required to implement mitigation measure GEO-1 (see the response to question 7.a.3) to reduce the potential for foundation damage due to on-site stormwater infiltration. Project design features in combination with mitigation measure GEO-1 would reduce impacts related to collapse to a less than significant level. Subsidence and ground collapse generally occur in areas with active groundwater withdrawal or petroleum production. The extraction of groundwater or petroleum from sedimentary source rocks can cause the permanent collapse of the pore space previously occupied by the removed fluid. The project site is not located within or near a petroleum field; therefore, subsidence related to petroleum extraction would not occur (County of Ventura 2011, Figure 1.4.7). Although the project proposes to excavation and recompact on-site soils, the applicant does not anticipate excavating to a depth greater than 15 feet below grade, which is at or above historic high groundwater levels. Therefore, it is unlikely that groundwater would be encountered over the course of construction. In the event that groundwater is encountered, minor dewatering of groundwater seepage may be necessary. However, temporary dewatering activities would not be substantial enough to induce subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? A significant impact would occur if the project would include development on expansive soils without proper site preparation or design features to provide adequate foundations for project buildings, thus posing a hazard to life and property. Expansive soils have relatively high clay mineral and expand with the addition of water and shrink when dried, which can cause damage to overlying structures. The geohazard report determined that the soils on-site consist of very loose to medium dense granular soils with potentially expansive soil on the eastern portion of the project site at a depth of 19 feet (Appendix G). However, as the geohazard report recommends, the project would implement ground improvement via construction of sub-grade stone columns under the building footprints and overexcavation and recompaction of soils to a depth deemed sufficient by the project
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 45 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development applicant’s geotechnical engineer. These project design features would reduce impacts related to expansive soils to a less than significant level. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? The project would connect to existing sewer lines that serve the project site and would not use septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact related to the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur. NO IMPACT f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? The paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units that underlie the project area was evaluated using the results of the paleontological locality search and review of existing information in the scientific literature concerning known fossils within those geologic units. Rincon reviewed fossil collections records from the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) online database, which contains known fossil localities in Ventura County. Following the literature review and museum record search, a paleontological sensitivity classification was assigned to the geologic units within the project area. The potential for impacts to significant paleontological resources is based on the potential for ground disturbance to directly impact paleontologically sensitive geologic units. The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010) has developed a system for assessing paleontological sensitivity and describes sedimentary rock units as having high, low, undetermined, or no potential for containing scientifically significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. This criterion is based on rock units within which vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils have been determined by previous studies to be present or likely to be present. The project site is located in the Little Simi Valley, between Oak Ridge to the north and the Las Posas Hills to the south, in the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province of California (California Geological Survey 2012). The Transverse Ranges extend approximately 275 miles west-east from Point Arguello in Santa Barbara County, east to the San Bernardino Mountains, and south to the Anacapa-Santa Monica Hollywood-Raymond-Cucamonga fault zone (Yerkes and Campbell 2005). The Transverse Ranges are composed of Proterozoic to Mesozoic intrusive crystalline igneous and metamorphic rocks overlain by Cenozoic marine and terrestrial deposits and volcanic rock. Active uplift and erosion in the Transverse Ranges has produced steep canyons and rugged topography (Morton and Miller 2006). The Moorpark area is in a seismically-active region of the Transverse Ranges where the underlying strata has been strongly faulted and folded. Nearby faults include the west- to north- west-trending Simi-Santa Rosa, Oak Ridge, and San Cayetano faults. The project site vicinity is mapped at a scale of 1:24,000 by Dibblee and Ehrenspeck (1992) and includes one (1) geologic unit mapped at ground surface: Quaternary alluvium of Holocene age composed of silt, sand, and gravel deposited along the floodplain of the east-draining Arroyo Simi/Arroyo Las Posas. A search of the paleontological locality records on the UCMP online database resulted in no previously recorded vertebrate fossil localities within Holocene sedimentary deposits within the project vicinity. Furthermore, according to the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for
46 Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils the City of Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan (1998), there are no known paleontological resources in the project area or vicinity. The geohazard report (Appendix G) prepared for the project indicates the Quaternary alluvium is at least 66 feet thick above the underlying Plio-Pleistocene Saugus Formation. The Saugus Formation has previously yielded paleontological resources in Ventura County, but project ground disturbance will be restricted to the shallow subsurface and the potentially fossiliferous Saugus Formation will not be impacted. Holocene sedimentary deposits, particularly those younger than 5,000 years old, are generally too young to contain fossilized material. As such, the Quaternary alluvium mapped at the surface of the project area has been assigned a low paleontological sensitivity, in accordance with SVP (2010) guidelines. Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 47 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
This page intentionally left blank.
48 Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions
8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? □ □ ■ □ b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? □ □ ■ □
Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period of time. The baseline against which these changes are measured originates in historical records identifying temperature changes that have occurred in the past, such as during past ice ages. The global climate is continuously changing, as evidenced by repeated episodes of substantial warming and cooling documented in the geologic record. The rate of change has typically been incremental, with warming or cooling trends occurring over the course of thousands of years. The past 10,000 years have been marked by a period of incremental warming, as glaciers have steadily retreated across the globe. However, scientists have observed acceleration in the rate of warming during the past 150 years. Per the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the understanding of anthropogenic (human-induced) warming and cooling influences on climate has led to a high confidence (95 percent or greater chance) that the global average net effect of human activities has been the dominant cause of warming since the mid-20th century (IPCC 2014). Gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHGs). The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced climate change include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxides (N2O), fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.
GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, and CH4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills.
Human-made GHGs, many of which have greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases and SF6 (California Environmental Protection Agency [CalEPA] 2006). Different
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 49 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWPs), which are the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the GHG emissions, referred to as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), and is the amount of a GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. CO2 has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, CH4 has a GWP of 25, meaning its global warming effect is 25 times greater than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis (IPCC 2007). The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates Earth’s temperature. Without the natural heat-trapping effect of GHGs, Earth’s surface would be about 34 degrees Celsius (°C) cooler (CalEPA 2006). However, emissions from human activities, particularly the consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation, have elevated the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring concentrations. Scientific modeling predicts that continued GHG emissions at or above current rates would induce more extreme climate changes during the 21st century than were observed during the 20th century. Some of the potential impacts in California of global warming may include loss of snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (CalEPA 2010). While these potential impacts identify the possible effects of climate change at a global and potentially statewide level, in general, scientific modeling tools are currently unable to predict what impacts would occur locally.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Worldwide anthropogenic emissions of GHGs were approximately 46,000 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e in 2010. CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes contributed about 65 percent of total emissions in 2010 (IPCC 2014).
Total U.S. GHG emissions were 6,511 MMT of CO2e in 2016 (U.S. EPA 2018). In 2016, the industrial and transportation end-use sectors accounted for 22 percent and 28.5 percent of GHG emissions, respectively. Electric power accounted for 28.4 percent of GHG emissions. Meanwhile, the residential and commercial end-use sectors accounted for 11 percent of GHG emissions (U.S. EPA 2018). Based on CARB’s California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2016, California produced 429.4 MMT of CO2e in 2016 (CARB 2018a). The largest single source of GHG in California is transportation, contributing 41 percent of the state’s total GHG emissions. Industrial sources are the second largest source of the state’s GHG emissions, contributing 23 percent of the state’s GHG emissions (CARB 2018a). California emissions are due in part to its large size and large population compared to other states. However, the mild climate reduces California’s per capita fuel use and GHG emissions as compared to other states. CARB has projected statewide unregulated GHG emissions for the year 2020 will be 509 MMT of CO2e (CARB 2018b). These projections represent the emissions that would be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG reduction actions.
Regulatory Setting
California Regulations The State of California considers GHG emissions and the impacts of climate change to be a serious threat to the public health, environment, economic well-being, and natural resources of California, and has taken an aggressive stance to mitigate its impact on climate change through the adoption of
50 Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions policies and legislation. CARB is responsible for the coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in the state. California has numerous regulations aimed at reducing the state’s GHG emissions; some of the major initiatives are summarized below.
ASSEMBLY BILL 32 California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” signed into law in 2006. AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (essentially a 15 percent reduction below 2005 emission levels; the same requirement as under S-3-05), and requires CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the 2020 deadline. In addition, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of California’s largest industrial emitters (CARB 2017). CARB approved the initial AB 32 Scoping Plan on December 11, 2008 and a 2020 statewide GHG emission limit of 427 MMT of CO2e was established. The Scoping Plan also included measures to address GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among others. Many of the GHG reduction measures included in the Scoping Plan (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Car standards, and Cap-and-Trade) have been adopted since approval of the Scoping Plan.
SENATE BILL 375 Senate Bill (SB) 375, signed in August 2008, enhances California’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles for 2020 and 2035. In addition, SB 375 directs each of California’s 18 major metropolitan planning organizations to prepare a “sustainable communities strategy” (SCS) that contains a growth strategy to meet these emission targets for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). On September 23, 2010, CARB adopted final regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035.
SENATE BILL 32 On September 8, 2016, the governor signed SB 32 into law, extending AB 32 by requiring California to further reduce GHGs to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program, as well as implementation of recently adopted policies and policies, such as SB 350 and SB 1383 (see below). The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan Update, the 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development. Instead, it recommends that local governments adopt policies and locally-appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with a statewide per capita goal of 6 metric tons (MT) of CO2e by 2030 and 2 MT of CO2e by 2050 (CARB 2017). As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan, these goals may be appropriate for plan-level analyses (city, county, subregional, or regional level), but not for specific individual projects because they include all emissions sectors in California.
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 51 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
Regional Regulations
SCAG RTP/SCS As discussed above, SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations to prepare an RTP/SCS that will achieve regional emission reductions through sustainable transportation and growth strategies. On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. SCAG was assigned targets of an eight percent reduction in GHGs from transportation sources by 2020 and a 19 percent reduction in GHGs from transportation sources by 2035. Most recently, SCAG adopted the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS on April 7, 2016, which includes strategies and objectives to encourage transit-oriented and infill development and use of alternative transportation to minimize vehicle use.
Significance Thresholds The adopted CEQA Guidelines provide regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions in CEQA documents, while giving lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(b) states that a lead agency should consider the following factors, among others, when assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment: ▪ The extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting; ▪ Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project; and ▪ The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions.
Locally-Appropriate, Project-Specific Efficiency Threshold The VCAPCD has not adopted GHG emissions thresholds. Therefore, this analysis uses a locally- appropriate, project-specific threshold consistent with the SB 32 target to evaluate the significance of the project’s GHG emissions. Efficiency thresholds are quantitative thresholds based on a measurement of GHG efficiency for a given project, regardless of the amount of mass emissions. These thresholds identify the emission level below which new development would not interfere with attainment of statewide GHG reduction targets. A project that attains such an efficiency target, with or without mitigation, would result in less than significant GHG emissions. A locally-appropriate 2030 project-specific threshold is derived from CARB’s recommendations in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, as discussed below. With the release of the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, CARB recognized the need to balance population growth with emissions reductions and in doing so, provided a new local plan- level methodology for target setting that provides consistency with state GHG reduction goals using per capita efficiency thresholds. A project-specific efficiency threshold can be calculated by dividing statewide GHG emissions by the sum of statewide jobs and residents. However, not all statewide emission sources would be impacted by the proposed project (e.g., agriculture and industrial). Accordingly, consistent with the concerns raised in the Golden Door (2018) and Newhall Ranch (2015) decisions regarding the correlation between state and local conditions, the 2030 statewide
52 Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions inventory target was modified with substantial evidence provided to establish a locally-appropriate, evidence-based, mixed-use project-specific threshold consistent with the SB 32 target. To develop this threshold, the local planning area was first evaluated to determine emissions sectors that are present and would be directly affected by potential land-use changes. A description of major sources of emissions that are included in the 2017 Scoping Plan emissions sectors and representative sources in Moorpark can be found in Table 8. Agricultural and Industrial Sector source emissions would not be directly impacted by the proposed project; therefore the Agricultural and Industrial Emissions Sectors were removed from the State 2030 emissions forecast to retain a more conservative project-specific target. Additionally, Cap and Trade emissions reductions occur independent of any local jurisdictional land use decisions and were also excluded from the locally- appropriate target. After removing Agricultural, Industrial, and Cap and Trade emissions, the remaining emissions sectors with sources within the Moorpark planning area were then summed to create a locally- appropriate emissions total for a mixed-use project in Moorpark. This locally-appropriate emissions total is divided by the statewide 2030 service person population to determine a locally-appropriate, project-level threshold of 3.2 MT of CO2e per service person that is consistent with SB 32 targets, as shown in Table 8 and Table 9.
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 53 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
Table 8 SB 32 Scoping Plan Emissions Sector Targets 2030 State Emissions Target Locally Project GHG Emissions Sector1 (MMT)1 Appropriate2 Specific Major Sources3 Residential and Commercial 38 Yes Yes Natural gas end uses, including space and water heating of buildings Electric Power 53 Yes Yes Electricity uses, including lighting, appliances, machinery and heating
High GWP 11 Yes Yes SF6 from power stations, HFCs from refrigerants and air conditioning4 Recycling and Waste 8 Yes Yes Waste generated by residential, commercial, and other facilities Transportation 103 Yes Yes Passenger, heavy duty, and other vehicle emissions Industrial 83 No No Oil, gas, and hydrogen production, refineries, general fuel use, and mining operations and would not be impacted by the proposed project
Agriculture 24 Yes No Enteric fermentation, crop residue burning, and manure management would not be impacted by the proposed project Cap and Trade Reductions -60 No No Reductions from facilities emitting more 5 than 10,000 MT CO2e per year Scoping Plan Target (All Sectors) 260 No No All emissions sectors Project-Specific Inapplicable -83 No No Oil, gas, and hydrogen production, Sector (Industrial) refineries, general fuel use, and mining operations Project-Specific Inapplicable -24 Yes No Enteric fermentation, crop residue Sector (Agriculture) burning, and manure management Locally Inapplicable Sector 60 No No Reductions from facilities emitting more 5 (Cap and Trade) than 10,000 MT CO2e per year 2030 Locally Applicable 213 Yes Yes Emissions applicable to the local Emissions Sectors planning area MMT = million metric tons 1 All State targets in MMT of CO2e. See the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, page 31 for sector details (CARB 2017). 2 Locally-appropriate is defined as having significant emissions in Scoping Plan Categorization categories within the planning area. 3 See CARB GHG Emissions Inventory Scoping Plan Categorization for details, available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm 4 SF6 is used primarily as an insulator in electrical substations while HFCs can be found in many residential and commercial refrigeration and air conditioning units. HFCs are in the process of being phased out through 2036 in most developed countries. 5 Cap and Trade is excluded as reductions will occur independent of local project land use decisions and are therefore not locally appropriate.
54 Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 9 SB 32 Locally-Appropriate Project-Specific Threshold California 2017 Climate California 2030 Population (persons)1 43,631,295 Change Scoping Plan California 2030 Employment Projection (persons)2 23,459,500 Service Population (persons) 67,090,795
Locally-Appropriate 2030 Locally-Appropriate Emissions Sectors (MT of CO2e) 213,000,000 2030 Project Threshold 2030 Service Population (persons) 67,090,795
2 2030 Service Person Target (MT of CO2e per Service Person) 3.2 1 CDOF 2019b 2 Average of employment range projections under implementation scenario. See CARB 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update, page 55 (CARB 2017). 3Total of 3.17 has been rounded up per Scoping Plan general methodology. Lead agencies may determine this threshold as they deem appropriate.
At this time, the State has codified a target of reducing emissions to 40 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2030 (SB 32) and has developed the 2017 Scoping Plan to demonstrate how the State will achieve the 2030 target and make substantial progress toward the 2050 goal of an 80 percent reduction in 1990 GHG emission levels set by EO S-3-05. In the recently signed EO B-55-18, which identifies a new goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 and supersedes the goal established by EO S-3-05, CARB has been tasked with including a pathway toward the EO B-55-18 carbon neutrality goal in the next Scoping Plan update. While State and regional regulators of energy and transportation systems, along with the State’s Cap and Trade program, are designed to be set at limits to achieve most of the reductions needed to hit the State’s long-term targets, local governments can do their fair share toward meeting the State’s targets by siting and approving projects that accommodate planned population growth and projects that are GHG-efficient. The AEP Climate Change Committee recommends that CEQA GHG analyses evaluate project emissions in light of the trajectory of state climate change legislation and assess their “substantial progress” toward achieving long‐term reduction targets identified in available plans, legislation, or EOs. Consistent with AEP Climate Change Committee recommendations, GHG impacts are analyzed in terms of whether the proposed project would impede “substantial progress” toward meeting the reduction goal identified in SB 32 and EO B-55- 18. As SB 32 is considered an interim target toward meeting the 2045 State goal, consistency with SB 32 would be considered contributing substantial progress toward meeting the State’s long-term 2045 goals. Avoiding interference with, and making substantial progress toward, these long-term State targets is important because these targets have been set at levels that achieve California’s fair share of international emissions reduction targets that will stabilize global climate change effects and avoid the adverse environmental consequences described under Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases (EO B-55-18).
Methodology The project’s construction and operational GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod, version 2016.3.2. CalEEMod calculates emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O associated with construction activities, energy use, area sources, waste generation, and water use and conveyance as well as emissions of CO2 and CH4 associated with project-generated vehicle trips (i.e. mobile sources). Because CalEEMod does not calculate N2O emissions from mobile sources, N2O emissions were quantified using guidance from CARB and the EMFAC2017 Emissions Inventory for the Ventura County region for year 2030 (the next GHG emission reduction target milestone year) using the
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 55 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
EMFAC2011 categories (Appendix C). Operational emissions were modeled for the year 2030 to be consistent with the State’s next GHG emission reduction milestone target of achieving 40 percent reduction in 1990 GHG emission levels by 2030. Emissions of all GHGs are converted into their equivalent global warming potential in terms of CO2 (i.e., CO2e). The construction schedule and list of construction equipment were based on CalEEMod defaults, with the exception of the architectural coating phase, which was extended to overlap with the building construction phase to reflect real-world construction practices. Over the course of construction, approximately 23,522 square feet of existing buildings would be demolished. Soil material would be balanced on-site; therefore, there would be no import or export of soil. To assess the construction emissions, the total emissions generated during construction were amortized based on the life of the project (30 years in accordance with SCAQMD guidance, which is preferred by the VCAPCD) and added to the operational emissions estimate (VCAPCD 2011; SCAQMD 2008). The project would be served by SCE. Therefore, SCE’s specific energy intensity factors (i.e., the amount of CO2e per megawatt-hour [MWh]) were used in the calculations of GHG emissions. The default energy intensity factors included in CalEEMod are based on 2012 data at which time SCE had only achieved a 20.6 percent procurement of renewable energy. Per SB 100, the statewide Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy sources to 60 percent by 2030. To account for the continuing effects of the RPS, the energy intensity factors included in CalEEMod were reduced based on the percentage of renewables mandated by SB 100. SCE energy intensity factors that include this reduction are shown in Table 1.
Table 10 SCE Energy Intensity Factors 2012 2030 (lbs/MWh) (lbs/MWh)2 Percent procurement 20.6%1 60%
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 702 353.65
Methane (CH4) 0.029 0.015
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 0.00617 0.003
1 Source: SCE 2012 2 RPS goal established by SB 100
Because project construction would begin in 2020, the project would be constructed in accordance with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Nonresidential buildings built in accordance with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards will use approximately 30 percent less energy than those constructed under the 2016 standards (California Energy Commission 2018). In accordance with Section 150.1(b)14 of the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, all new residential uses under three stories must install photovoltaic (PV) solar panels that generate an amount of electricity equal to expected electricity usage. Therefore, based on the calculation method contained in Section 150.1(b)14, the project would be required to include 126 kW of PV solar panels, which would generate approximately 239,980 kWh per year (see Appendix C). Accordingly, the energy reductions achieved by compliance with the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and by installation of the rooftop solar PV system and energy-efficient appliances were included in CalEEMod.
56 Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Modeling of GHG emissions from water consumption and wastewater generation includes a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use to account for compliance with CALGreen. Modeling of transportation-related GHG emissions utilized the “Increase Density” feature in CalEEMod to account for the project’s density of 42 dwelling units per acre. a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Project construction activities are assumed to occur over a period of approximately 12 months based on CalEEMod default assumptions. Based on CalEEMod modeling results, construction activities for the project would generate an estimated 419 MT of CO2e between 2019 and 2020 (Table 11). Amortized over a 30-year period (the assumed life of the project per SCAQMD guidance), construction of the project would generate about 14 MT of CO2e per year.
Table 11 Estimated Construction Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Construction Year Annual Emissions (MT of CO2e)
2020 129.8
2021 289.1
Total 418.9
Amortized over 30 years 14.0
Notes: See Appendix C for CalEEMod results. Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
Table 12 summarizes the project’s operational GHG emissions. Because the existing buildings on-site are vacant, the modeling assumed that GHG emissions are not currently generated on-site. As shown below, annual emissions would total approximately 1,036 MT of CO2e, or approximately 2.7 MT of CO2e per service person, which would not exceed the locally-appropriate, project-specific 3 threshold of 3.2 MT of CO2e per year. Therefore, project impacts would be less than significant.
3 1,036 MT of CO2e / (302 residents + 88 employees) = 2.6 MT of CO2e per service population
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 57 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
Table 12 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Emission Source Proposed Project Emissions (MT of CO2e)
Construction 14.0
Operational Area 1.1 Energy 220.6 Solid Waste 65.1 Water 31.6
Mobile
CO2 and CH4 686.6
N2O 16.5
Total Project Emissions 1,035.5
Service Population (Residents + Employees) 390
Emissions per SP 2.7
Locally-Applicable, Project-Specific 3.2 Threshold
Threshold Exceeded? No
N/A = not applicable Notes: See Appendix C for CalEEMod results. Some numbers may not add up due to rounding. SP = service population (302 residents + 88 employees) * Shown for informational purposes only since the 2017 Scoping Plan threshold is not intended to be a project-level threshold.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? As discussed under “Regulatory Setting,” a number of plans and policies have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions in the Southern California region, including Ventura County. SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS provides land use and transportation strategies to reduce regional GHG emissions. The VCAPCD, Ventura County, and the City of Moorpark have not adopted plans or policies related to GHG emission reductions. Specific land use objectives identified in SCAG’s 2016 RTP/SCS include: ▪ Reflect the Changing Population and Demands. The SCAG region, home to about 18.8 million people in 2015, currently contains 5.9 million households and 8 million jobs. By 2040, the Plan projects that these figures will increase by 3.4 million people, with nearly 1.5 million more households and 1.8 million more jobs (SCAG 2016). High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs) will account for three percent of regional total land, but will accommodate 46 percent and 55 percent of future household and employment growth, respectively, between 2012 and 2040. The 2016 RTP/SCS land use pattern contains sufficient residential capacity to accommodate the region’s future growth, including the eight-year regional housing need. The land use pattern
58 Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions
accommodates about 530,000 additional households in the SCAG region by 2020 and 1.5 million more households by 2040. The land use pattern also encourages improvement in the jobs- housing balance by accommodating 1.1 million more jobs by 2020 and about 2.4 million more jobs by 2040. ▪ Focus New Growth Around Transit. The 2016 RTP/SCS land use pattern reinforces the trend of focusing growth in the region’s HQTAs. Concentrating housing and transit in conjunction concentrates roadway repair investments, leverages transit and active transportation investments, reduces regional life cycle infrastructure costs, improves accessibility, avoids greenfield development, and has the potential to improve public health and housing affordability. HQTAs provide households with alternative modes of transport that can reduce VMT and GHG emissions. ▪ Plan for Growth Around Livable Corridors. The Livable Corridors strategy seeks to revitalize commercial strips through integrated transportation and land use planning that results in increased economic activity and improved mobility options. From a land use perspective, Livable Corridors strategies include a special emphasis on fostering collaboration between neighboring jurisdictions to encourage better planning for various land uses, corridor branding, roadway improvements and focusing retail into attractive nodes along a corridor. ▪ Provide More Options for Short Trips. Thirty-eight percent of all trips in the SCAG region are less than three miles. The 2016 RTP/SCS provides two strategies to promote the use of active transport for short trips. Neighborhood Mobility Areas are meant to reduce short trips in a suburban setting, while “complete communities” support the creation of mixed use districts in strategic growth areas and are applicable to an urban setting. ▪ Preserve our Existing System. Southern California’s transportation system is becoming increasingly compromised by decades of underinvestment in maintaining and preserving our infrastructure. These investments have not kept pace with the demands placed on the system and the quality of many roads, highways, bridges, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities are continuing to deteriorate. Unfortunately, the longer they deteriorate, the more expensive they will be to fix in the future. Even worse, deficient conditions compromise the safety of users throughout the network. For all of these reasons, system preservation and achieving a state of good repair are top priorities of the 2016 RTP/SCS. ▪ Transit. Looking toward 2040, the 2016 RTP/SCS maintains a significant investment in public transportation across all transit modes and also calls for new household and employment growth to be targeted in areas that are well-served by public transportation to maximize the improvements called for in the Plan. ▪ Active Transportation. The 2016 RTP/SCS includes $12.9 billion for active transportation improvements, including $8.1 billion in capital projects and $4.8 billion as part of the operations and maintenance expenditures on regionally significant local streets and roads. The Active Transportation portion of the 2016 Plan updates the Active Transportation portion of the 2012 Plan, which has goals for improving safety, increasing active transportation usage and friendliness, and encouraging local active transportation plans. It proposes strategies to further develop the regional bikeway network, assuming that all local active transportation plans will be implemented, and dedicates resources to maintain and repair thousands of miles of dilapidated sidewalks. To accommodate the growth in walking, biking and other forms of active transportation regionally, the 2016 Active Transportation Plan also considers new strategies and approaches beyond those proposed in 2012.
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 59 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
The proposed project would provide mixed use, transit-oriented infill development in downtown Moorpark along High Street, which is a local collector road with designated bike lanes and sidewalks. The project site is located in close proximity to a variety of commercial, civic, and institutional development and is within one mile of the Moorpark Town Center. The project site is located within 200 feet of the Moorpark Metrolink rail station and the Moorpark bus stop for the Moorpark City Transit Routes 1 and 2 and VCTC’s East County and East-West Connector bus lines. In addition, the project would include 15,018 sf of commercial space that would provide restaurants, a coffee or ice-cream shop, and neighborhood retail services for residents. In these ways, the project fulfills several land use objectives of SCAG’s RTP/SCS, including focusing new growth around transit, providing more options for short trips, revitalizing commercial strips into livable corridors, and encouraging active transportation. Furthermore, State policies to reduce GHG emissions associated with energy use, including the Renewable Portfolio Standard and Title 24 of the California Building Code, would reduce anticipated emissions associated with the proposed project. Overall, the project would be consistent with applicable land use and zoning designations and would not conflict with any State regulations intended to reduce GHG emissions statewide. As discussed in the response to question 8.a, annual GHG emissions for the proposed project would be less than the threshold of 3,000 MT of CO2e per year established by the SCAQMD. Additionally, as discussed in detail in Section 11, Land Use and Planning, the proposed project would also be consistent with other policies of the Moorpark General Plan, including a range of policies aimed indirectly at reducing GHG emissions through reductions in vehicle miles traveled, energy use, and water consumption. Consequently, the project would not conflict with plans and policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions and such impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
60 Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? □ □ ■ □ b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? □ □ ■ □ c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? □ □ □ ■ d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? □ ■ □ □ e. For a project located in an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? □ □ □ ■ f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? □ □ □ ■ g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? □ □ □ ■
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 61 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? The proposed project would involve the construction of residential dwellings and commercial space that typically do not use or store large quantities of hazardous materials. Potentially hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, and solvents would be used during construction of the project. However, the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials during the construction of the project would be conducted in accordance with all applicable state and federal laws, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Material Management Act, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? The project site is not located within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. The nearest school is Chaparral Middle School, located approximately 0.50 mile southwest of the project site. The proposed project would involve construction of a mixed use project including residential units and commercial uses. Operational activities associated with these uses would not involve use or storage of hazardous materials. Though potentially hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, solvents, and oils could be used during demolition, construction and operation of the proposed project, the transport, use, and storage of any and all hazardous materials would be conducted in accordance with all applicable State and federal lows, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Material Management Act, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 22. Regardless, due to the distance to the nearest school, impacts to schools associated with hazardous emissions would not occur. NO IMPACT d. Would the project be located on a site included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The following databases and listings compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 were checked for known hazardous materials contamination at the project site: ▪ United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS)/Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS)/Envirofacts database search
▪ State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker search for leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) and other cleanup sites
▪ Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Envirostor database for hazardous waste facilities or known contamination sites Cortese List of Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites
62 Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The project site is not listed in any of the above environmental databases. The UNOCAL #1696 property (A&P ARCO site) located just west and adjacent to the project site and the J.E. Clark property located approximately 900 feet east of the project site are the closest properties listed in the GeoTracker database. Both sites are LUST cleanup sites. The UNOCAL #1696 site is listed as having potential soil contamination with waste oil, motor, hydraulic, and lubricating fluids and the J.E. Clark property is listed as having potential soil contamination with diesel. Both sites however, are listed as cleanup completed. The UNOCAL #1696 case was closed in May 1994 and the J.E. Clark case was closed in April 1995. There is no evidence to suggest that any contamination from these sites have caused contamination at the project site. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed for the project site by Rincon Consultants, Inc. in June 2018 (Appendix H). This study included a review of databases, city and county records, and a site reconnaissance on June 5, 2018. During the site reconnaissance, the following hazardous materials were observed in small quantities: ▪ The storage area at the former Maria’s Restaurant contains small quantities of oil based protective enamel, contact cement, polyurethane, and paint & primer. ▪ One unmarked 55-gallon drum with unknown contents located adjacent to the former “One More Time” thrift shop (220 E High St.) on the site.
However, there were no indications of releases from these containers. The Phase I ESA concludes that there are no Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) in connection with the project site. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was also completed for the project site and the adjacent “Chamber of Commercial Site” in January 2017 by EFI Global. This study is on file with the City of Moorpark. This Phase I ESA also concluded that (1) the project site is not listed on any of the researched regulatory databases; (2) there are no known properties within 100 feet of the project site where a release is considered likely or a known release has occurred; and (3) none of the other sites listed on the regulatory database report pose a significant threat to the subject property. However, the Rincon Phase I ESA identified two potential RECs in connection with the adjacent properties, including (1) existing railroad tracks adjacent to south of the site, and (2) the presence of a former gasoline service station located adjacent to the western property boundary. Concerns associated with the railroad tracks include the potential of hydrocarbons, metals, herbicides, and semi volatile organic compounds (creosote, naphthalene) from railroad activities present in the soils surrounding the railroad tracks. Concerns associated with the former gas station include the potential for contaminated soil gas migration and vapor intrusion of contaminants originating from the former gas station onto the project site. Based on the findings from the Phase I ESA, the project site has potential for containing contaminated soil from the two potential RECs adjacent to the project site. Therefore, mitigation is required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
HAZ-1 Soil Sampling and Soil Vapor Assessment Within 30 days of the project applicant acquiring the project site from the City of Moorpark and prior to issuance of a grading permit, a shallow soil sampling assessment shall be conducted on the southern portion of the site as close to the railroad tracks as possible, but not within the railroad right-of-way (i.e., within 30 feet of the railroad tracks), to evaluate the adjacent railroad tracks and determine if hydrocarbons, metals, herbicides, and semi volatile organic compounds from the
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 63 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development railroad activities are present in the shallow soil near the railroad tracks. Contaminated soil identified during sampling activities shall be removed and stored in appropriate waste containers, which shall be stored in a secure location such that no person will come into contact with contaminated materials. Any contaminated soil shall be stored in a roll-off bin or similarly-covered container. The handling and transport of waste shall be conducted in accordance with applicable local, state and federal regulations, including the USEPA Resource Conversation and Recovery Act (40 CFR Part 262), Federal and State Occupational Safety and Health Administrations, Federal and State Departments of Transportation, and DTSC (CFR Title 22). Any contaminated soils determined to be hazardous or non-hazardous waste must adequately profiled (sampled) prior to acceptable re- use or disposal at an appropriate off-site facility. Complete sampling and handling and transport procedures for reuse or disposal shall be completed in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and policies. In addition, a shallow vapor sampling assessment shall be conducted on the western portion of the site adjacent to the former gasoline station (now the Chamber of Commerce building) to determine if there is VOC-impacted soil vapor migrating beneath the site from the adjacent property. The soil vapor survey shall be performed according to the applicable standards of the DTSC and CalEPA. If the investigations indicate that any soil exceeds federal, state, or local regulatory action levels, then the soil shall be remediated to applicable agency standards through soil removal and disposal efforts. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area, or within two miles of a public or private airport. The closest airports are the Camarillo Airport, which is approximately 15 miles southwest of the project site, and the Santa Paula Airport, which is approximately 18 miles northwest of the project site. NO IMPACT f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The project would be required to comply with applicable City codes and regulations pertaining to emergency response and evacuation plans maintained by the County police department and fire departments. No roads would be permanently closed as a result of the construction or operation of the proposed project, and no structures would be developed that could potentially impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The City also has a grid pattern of streets within the downtown area so at no point would any parcel or building be rendered inaccessible. The proposed project would be accessed via existing driveways along High Street. These driveways would provide sufficient ingress/egress for the standard vehicles, trucks, and heavy duty trucks that would frequent the project site. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with existing emergency evacuation plans or emergency response plans in the area. Therefore, no impact would occur. NO IMPACT
64 Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? The project site is located in an urbanized, downtown area in the City of Moorpark, and is therefore, located in an area that is more resistant to wildfire. In addition, the Downtown Specific Plan states that all buildout of the area will apply normal fire protection measures. The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. No impacts would occur. NO IMPACT
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 65 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
This page intentionally left blank.
66 Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality 10 Hydrology and Water Quality Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? □ □ ■ □ b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? □ □ ■ □ c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □ (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □ (iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or □ □ ■ □ (iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ □ ■ d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? □ □ □ ■ e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? □ □ ■ □
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 67 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Project-related grading and construction, including on-site operation of heavy equipment during grading and construction, would require temporary disturbance of surface soils and removal of vegetative cover which could potentially result in erosion and sedimentation on-site. This would alter the existing drainage pattern on-site. The project site is flat, so the potential for soil erosion is low, but peak stormwater runoff could result in short-term sheet erosion in areas of exposed soils. The project would be required to obtain coverage under a Construction General Permit (CGP) to comply with Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Compliance with the permit would require the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevent Plan (SWPPP) and associated Best Management Practices (BMPs). The BMPs would include measures that would be implemented to prevent discharge of eroded soils from the construction site and sedimentation of surface waters off-site. The BMPs would also include measures to quickly contain and clean up any minor spills or leaks of fluids from construction equipment. Given the relatively flat topography of the site, distance from surface waters, and implementation of the required SWPPP, construction of the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. A Hydrology Report was completed for the project site by CCE Design Associates, Inc. in June 2019 and is included in full as Appendix B. The purpose of the report was to validate the grading and drainage design for the proposed project. Overall, drainage patterns on the project site will remain largely unchanged. However, as described under Project Description, storm drain inlets will be integrated into parking areas, and new LID BMPs would be integrated into the building, landscaping, streetscape, and parking lot areas. Storm drain inlets would be collected by a new on-site storm drain system, which would discharge into the existing storm drain within High Street and ultimately drain to Moorpark Storm Drain No. 1. The project would be subject to the requirements of a Ventura County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) permit, which requires the use of site specific BMPs. As described under Project Description, site-specific LID BMPs would be integrated into the project in compliance with the 2011 TGM. These measures include site planning to achieve five percent Effective Impervious Area, use of pervious paving/landscaping, and installation of storm drain signage. Furthermore, treatment control BMPs such as planter boxes, bio-retention areas, biofiltration basins, and “StormTreat” linear stormwater filtration devices would be installed to treat runoff from roof areas, parking/drive-aisle areas, and street frontage areas would be installed. Per the findings within the Gabbert & Walnut Canyon Channels Flood Control Deficiency Study (County of Ventura 2005), the Ventura County Watershed Protection District has established an allowable peak discharge flow rate of 90 percent or less of the pre-development flow rate. The “pre- development” flow rate for the project site is 4.62 cfs using the 100-year peak event runoff flow rate. Therefore, an acceptable peak discharge flow rate for the project is 4.16 cfs (0.90 * 4.62 cfs). The maximum “post-development” flow rate for the developed project site would be 5.08 cfs. However, the project would reduce the post-development flow rate by 0.92 cfs by including 175 feet of oversized 48-inch drain pipe in the western drainage area and 65 feet of 36-inch pipe within the eastern drainage area (Appendix B). These drain pipes would detain and accumulate stormwater runoff, then release runoff at various metered rates that meet City and County criteria for detained flow release depending on the size of the storm event.
68 Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality
Therefore, operation of the project would not be expected to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project would have less than significant impacts with respect to water quality standards and discharge requirements. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? The project site is within the boundaries of the draft Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the Las Posas Valley Basin (Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency 2017). The draft GSP projects future water demands based on historic water availability and demand, and buildout of the General Plan. While the project would require rezoning of the project site, the proposed project would be consistent to the DTSP vision of revitalizing the downtown area. Therefore, projected groundwater demands in the draft GSP generally take into account water demand from the project. According to the Preliminary Geohazard Report (Appendix G), groundwater was encountered at sites along High Street at depths of 33 to 38 feet in the drill holes. Historic high groundwater levels in downtown Moorpark have been within 15 to 20 feet of the ground surface. As discussed in Section 7, Geology and Soils, although the project proposes to excavate and recompact on-site soils, the applicant does not anticipate excavating to a depth greater than 15 feet below grade, which is at or above historic high groundwater levels. Therefore, it is unlikely that groundwater would be encountered over the course of construction. In the event that groundwater is encountered, minor dewatering of groundwater seepage may be necessary. However, temporary dewatering activities would not be substantial enough to induce subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to the depletion of groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c.(i) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? c.(ii) Would the project substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? c.(iii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Project construction would be required to obtain coverage under a CGP to comply with Clean Water Act NPDES requirements. Compliance with the permit would require the development and implementation of a SWPPP and associated BMPs. The BMPs would include measures that would be implemented to prevent discharge of eroded soils from the construction site, sedimentation of
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 69 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development surface waters off-site, and any increase of surface runoff that could result in flooding off-site. Given the relatively flat topography of the site, distance from surface waters, the minimal grading and excavation required for construction, and implementation of the required SWPPP, construction of the project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The proposed project would not alter the course of any stream or river but would change existing drainage patterns on the project site. Development of the proposed project would introduce more impervious surfaces; however, as discussed above in question 7.a above, the proposed on-site BMPs would filter stormwater, reduce off-site flows to acceptable levels via detention, and thus minimize potential erosion. In addition, per the Downtown Specific Plan’s IS-MND Mitigation Monitoring Program, the project’s grading drainage plan has been reviewed by the City’s Public Works Department, with comments provided to the applicant, and is required to be approved by the City Council. Construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with the CGP, the SWPPP, Ventura County’s MS4 Permit, the DTSP, and the MMC. The MMC outlines stormwater and drainage requirements for new development including the required approvals prior to construction. Compliance with these requirements would reduce potential adverse impacts associated with drainage pattern alterations. Alterations to the existing drainage pattern would be less than significant and would not result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site. The project would be designed and engineered with drainage features appropriate to accommodate needs of the proposed project. The project would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. As discussed under the responses to questions 7.a, 7.c, .7.d, and 7.f, the project would comply with all NPDES requirements, Ventura County’s MS4 Permit, and the City’s runoff requirements. Development of the project would not create or contribute runoff water in exceedance of the City’s existing stormwater drainage systems and would not provide a substantial additional source of polluted runoff. According to the DTSP, the downtown area has undergone a number of storm drainage infrastructure upgrades, and the storm drainage system servicing the majority of the residential and commercial areas within the DTSP area is fully in place. In accordance with DTSP stormwater requirements, the proposed project would discharge to an existing approved storm drain system, and the project has been designed to comply with NPDES Standards for discharge and pollutant runoff. The proposed project’s on-site stormwater and drainage improvements would also require inspection and approval by the City prior to receiving building occupancy permits. Through compliance with the Downtown Specific Plan and the MMC, impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
70 Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality c.(iv) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would impede or redirect flood flows? According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the project site is located in Zone X, which is characterized as an area of minimal flood hazard and having a less than 0.2 percent annual chance to be inundated by flood waters as a result of a storm event (Map # 06111C0817E) (FEMA 2018). In addition, according to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) MyHazards online database, the project site is not located in a 100- year floodplain (Cal OES 2015). The project would not expose people or structures to a significant loss, injury, or death involving flooding. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT d. Would the project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Seiches are seismically induced waves that occur in large bodies of water, such as lakes and reservoirs. The project site is not in proximity to a large body of water, and therefore, seiches are a not a risk to the project site. No impacts would occur. A tsunami is a tidal wave produced by off-shore seismic activity. The project site is not located in a tsunami inundation area as shown on the Ventura County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and would not be subject to inundation by tsunami (County of Ventura 2010). No impacts would occur. The project site is not located in an earthquake-induced landslide zone (County of Ventura 2010). Landslides and mud flows are most likely to occur on or near a slope or hillside area, rather than in generally level areas, such as the project site. Mud flows would not be a risk to the project. The project would have no impact. NO IMPACT
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 71 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
This page intentionally left blank.
72 Environmental Checklist Land Use and Planning 11 Land Use and Planning Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? □ □ □ ■ b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? □ □ □ ■ a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The project site is located within the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) area. The vision of the DTSP is to revitalize downtown and implement design standards, guidelines, and a strategy for business attraction and development of the City owned parcels in downtown. Specifically, the High Street area is important because it retains the country charm that includes a pedestrian-oriented area where people walk and shop. The site is currently occupied by an abandoned granary and non-operational industrial buildings. No residential dwellings are located on-site. The project would demolish the existing abandoned buildings and construct 91 residential units, 15,018 sf of commercial space, and a village green within the DTSP area. The project would create an interconnected and pedestrian-friendly environment on the project site and immediately adjacent to areas parallel to High Street Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community. NO IMPACT b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The proposed mix of residential and commercial uses is consistent with the applicable Moorpark General Plan Land Use Element’s Commercial Development, Economic Development and Employment, Community Appearance, and Residential Development Goals and Policies referenced in the DTSP. The project is also consistent with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and Housing Element. The proposed project would further the DTSP vision of revitalizing the downtown area by bringing business attraction and pedestrian-oriented areas to downtown. The construction of a mixed use development would help further along the goals of both the Moorpark General Plan and the DTSP, which both call for residential development in close proximity to employment opportunities, shopping areas, public parks, and transit lines. Construction of a mixed use development downtown would allow people to walk or bike to activities and work within the DTSP area.
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 73 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
On May 15, 2019, the Moorpark City Council directed staff to prepare a Mixed-Use Overlay Zone ordinance that would allow for the development of mixed commercial and residential uses within downtown and provide for flexible parking standards within the downtown area proximate to the train station. Adoption of a Mixed-Use Overlay Zone ordinance would be required prior to consideration of project entitlements. The project would require a Zoning Map Amendment to apply the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone to the project parcels. Application of the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone would achieve the following: ▪ Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map Amendment, and Mixed-Use Overlay Zone. The current C-OT zoning designation does not allow residential uses as part of mixed-use developments. Therefore, the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone would allow residential uses as part of the proposed mixed-use development within the underlying C-OT zoning district. This overlay zone would be added on top of the existing commercial zone and would preserve the underlying intent and set of allowable uses of the C-OT zone while adding allowable residential uses as part of a mixed- use project. The Mixed-Use Overlay Zone would also establish flexible parking standards for mixed-use development projects located near transit. The Mixed-Use Overlay Zone would be added to the City’s Zoning Ordinance and would contain applicable mixed-use development standards that would supersede the development standards of the underlying commercial zone but would only be applicable to mixed-use projects. The proposed zoning district overlay would only be applied to the project parcel (APN 512-0-090-115) via a Zoning Map Amendment; therefore, no additional impacts from development beyond those already analyzed in the IS- MND would occur. For the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone to be extended or applied to other parcels in the future, an additional environmental analysis subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would need to occur.
The proposed project has been reviewed by City Staff and is designed in conformance with the development standards outlined in the amended DTSP, the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone, and the Zoning Code. A Residential Planned Development Permit is also required and, pursuant to Zoning Code Section 17.44.040, may be utilized to set project-specific development standards. Because the project is consistent with the General Plan and the adoption of a Mixed-Use Overlay Zone would allow for ground-floor residential uses and flexible parking requirements as envisioned in DTSP Section 3.8, the project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT
74 Environmental Checklist Mineral Resources 12 Mineral Resources Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? □ □ □ ■ b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? □ □ □ ■ a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? The project site is developed with a former granary and industrial buildings and is not currently being used for extraction of mineral resources. According to Figure 2 of the Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element of the City’s General Plan (1986), the entire city is located within a mineral resource area of interest. However, the project site is within MRZ-1, an area where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, according to Figure 1.4.1 of the County of Ventura’s General Plan Resources Appendix (2011). Moreover, the project would not involve the use or mining of mineral resources. Therefore, no impact related to the loss of availability of a known, important statewide, regional, or local mineral resource would occur. NO IMPACT
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 75 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
This page intentionally left blank.
76 Environmental Checklist Noise 13 Noise Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project result in: a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? □ ■ □ □ b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? □ □ ■ □ c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? □ □ □ ■
Noise Background Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound power levels to be consistent with that of human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz (about the highest note on a piano) and less sensitive to low frequencies (below 100 Hertz). Because of the logarithmic scale of the decibel unit, sound levels cannot be added or subtracted arithmetically. If a sound’s noise energy is doubled, the sound level increases by 3 dBA, regardless of the initial sound level. Noise level increases of less than 3 dBA typically are not noticeable. Noise levels from point sources, such as those from individual pieces of machinery or railroad crossing signals, typically attenuate (or drop off) at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from the noise source. Noise levels from lightly traveled roads typically attenuate at a rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise levels from heavily traveled roads and railroads typically attenuate at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018). Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings between the receiver and the noise source reduces noise levels by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA (FTA 2018). The manner in which homes in California are constructed generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of approximately 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows (FTA 2018).
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 77 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
In addition to the instantaneous measurement of sound levels, the duration of sound is important because sounds that occur over a long period of time are more likely to be an annoyance or cause direct physical damage or environmental stress. One of the most frequently used noise metrics that considers both duration and sound power level is the equivalent noise level (Leq). The Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time (essentially, the average noise level). Typically, Leq is summed over a one-hour period. Lmax is the highest RMS (root mean squared) sound pressure level within the measurement period, and Lmin is the lowest RMS sound pressure level within the measurement period. The time period in which noise occurs is also important since nighttime noise tends to disturb people more than daytime noise. Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (Ldn), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a 10-dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a 5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a 10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Noise levels described by Ldn and CNEL typically do not differ by more than 1 dBA. In practice, CNEL and Ldn are often used interchangeably.
The relationship between peak hourly Leq values and associated Ldn/CNEL values depends on the distribution of traffic over the entire day. There is no precise way to convert a peak hour Leq to Ldn or CNEL. However, in urban areas near heavy traffic, the peak hour Leq is typically 2 to 4 dBA lower than the daily Ldn/CNEL. In less heavily developed areas, such as suburban areas, the peak hour Leq is often roughly equal to the daily Ldn/CNEL. For rural areas with little nighttime traffic, the peak hour Leq will often be 3 to 4 dBA greater than the daily Ldn/CNEL value (California State Water Resources Control Board [SWRCB] 1999). The project site is located in a suburban area; therefore, the Ldn/CNEL in the area would be roughly equal to the peak hour Leq.
Regulatory Setting
City of Moorpark General Plan Noise Element The Noise Element of the Moorpark General Plan Identifies existing sources of noise in Moorpark, as well as noise-related goals, policies, and implementation. The goals and policies in the Noise Element aim to maintain acceptable environmental noise levels to protect Moorpark residents from excessive noise. The Noise Element establishes noise standards for single-family and multiple-family residential land uses as 65 CNEL for the exterior environment, 55 CNEL for the interior environment with windows open, and 45 CNEL for the interior environment with windows closed (City of Moorpark 1998).
Municipal Code
CONSTRUCTION NOISE Section 17.53.070.F prohibits the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work so as to violate the noise standards set forth in Table 13 between weekday (Saturdays and legal holidays observed by the city included) hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or at any time on Sundays. Table 13 shows noise standards at residential and business properties for the nonscheduled, intermittent, short-term operation (less than ten days) of mobile construction equipment and for
78 Environmental Checklist Noise the repetitively scheduled and relatively long-term operation (periods of ten days or more) of stationary construction equipment.
Table 13 Construction Equipment Noise Standards
dBA Leq
Single-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Business Properties
Mobile1 Stationary Mobile1 Stationary Mobile Stationary
Daily, except Sundays and 75 75 80 80 75 65 legal holidays, 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Daily, 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 60 n/a 65 n/a 75 65 a.m.
n/a = not applicable 1 Mobile construction equipment noise is also permitted on Sundays and legal holidays up to 60 dBA in single-family residential areas and up to 65 dBA in multifamily residential areas. Source: Moorpark Municipal Code Section 17.53.070, Tables 1, 2, and 2A
Section 17.53.100.E of the Moorpark Municipal Code (MMC) exempts repair, remodeling or grading of real property from the operational exterior noise limits detailed in MMC Section 17.53.080 and the interior noise limits detailed in MMC Section 17.53.090 provided that construction occurs during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Monday through Saturday. No construction is permitted on Sundays and national holidays.
OPERATIONAL NOISE MMC Section 17.53.070.E of the MMC prohibits the loading, unloading, opening, closing or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or similar objects between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. any day of the week in such a manner as to cause a noise disturbance across a residential property line or at any time to violate the provisions of Section 17.53.050. Section 17.53.070.N of the MMC also includes noise standards for residential HVAC equipment. HVAC equipment operating within a residential area may not exceed the noise levels shown in Table 14.
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 79 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
Table 14 Residential HVAC Equipment Noise Standards
Units Installed Before Units Installed on or After Measurement Location 1-1-80 (dBA) 1-1-80 (dBA)
Any point on neighboring property line, 5 feet above grade 60 55 level, no closer than 3 feet from any wall
Center of neighboring patio, 5 feet above grade level, no 55 50 closer than 3 feet from any wall
Outside the neighboring living area window nearest the 55 50 equipment location, not more than 3 feet from the window opening, but at least 3 feet from any other surface
Source: Moorpark Municipal Code Section 17.50.070
MMC Section 17.53.080 sets exterior noise limits for existing receiving land uses, which are summarized in Table 15. As shown therein, the allowable exterior noise levels for single-family and multifamily residential uses are 55 dBA from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and 60 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The allowable exterior noise levels for general commercial and planned development land uses are 60 dBA from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and 65 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. No person may cause the noise level on another property to exceed these noise limits by: ▪ Any level for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour ▪ 5 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour ▪ 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour ▪ 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour ▪ 20 dBA for any period of time
Table 15 Exterior Noise Limits
Allowable Exterior Noise Type of Land Use Time Interval Level (dBA)
Single-family and multi-family residential/rural and 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. 55 agricultural zones 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 60
Commercial office/neighborhood 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. 55
7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 60
General commercial/planned development 10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. 60
7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 65
Industrial park Anytime 65
Limited industrial Anytime 70
Public space All day 70
Source: Moorpark Municipal Code Section 17.50.080
80 Environmental Checklist Noise
MMC Section 17.53.090 sets interior noise limits for receiving single-family and multifamily residential land uses, which are shown in Table 16. No person may cause the noise level on another property to exceed: ▪ The noise standard for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour ▪ The noise standard plus 5 dbA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour ▪ The noise standard plus 10 dbA or the maximum measured ambient noise level for any period of time
Table 16 Interior Noise Limits
Allowable Interior Type of Land Use Time Interval Noise Level (dBA)
Single-family and multi-family residential 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 45/55 (windows open)
Source: Moorpark Municipal Code Section 17.50.090
ROADWAY NOISE Because the City of Moorpark does not have noise standards for operational mobile sources, this analysis relies on the recommendations of the FTA for the allowable increase in roadway noise exposure due to a project as set forth in the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, which are summarized in Table 17 (2018).
Table 17 Significance of Changes in Roadway Noise Exposure
Existing Noise Exposure Noise Exposure Increase Significance Threshold (dBA Ldn or Leq) (dBA Ldn or Leq) 45-50 7 50-55 5 55-60 3 60-65 2 65-74 1 75+ 0 Source: FTA 2018
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS The primary off-site noise sources in the project site vicinity are motor vehicles (e.g., automobiles, buses, and trucks) along High Street and Moorpark Avenue. Motor vehicle noise is of concern because it is characterized by a high number of individual events, which often create sustained noise levels. Ambient noise levels are generally highest during the daytime and rush hour unless congestion slows traffic speeds substantially. Other intermittent sources of noise in the project vicinity include railway noise, and general conversations from passersby activities associated with nearby residential and commercial development.
To determine ambient noise levels at the project site, three 15-minute noise measurements (Leq[15] dBA) were taken between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. (morning peak hour) on Monday, June 12, 2018. Table 18 summarizes the results of the short-term noise measurements. As shown in Table 18, short-term measured noise levels ranged from 55.0 to 69.0 dBA Leq. Noise Measurement ST-1 was
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 81 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development taken approximately 30 feet from the centerline of High Street, and 150 feet from the railroad tracks to the south and gives an estimate of the combined noise of roadway traffic and a passing-by train. Noise Measurement ST-2 was taken in the center of the project site and gives an estimate of roadway noise only. Noise Measurement ST-3 was taken adjacent to nearby residences and provides an estimate of existing ambient sound levels at the nearest sensitive receivers.
Table 18 Short-Term Sound Level Monitoring Results
Approximate Measurement Distance to Centerline Leq[15] Number Measurement Location Sample Time of Roadway (feet) (dBA)1
ST-1 High Street 7:57 a.m. – 8:12 a.m. 30 2 69.0
ST-2 Center of Project Site 7:41 a.m. – 7:56 a.m. 60 3 65.4
ST-3 Walnut Street adjacent to 8:16 a.m. – 8:31 a.m. 30 4 55.0 nearby residence (sensitive receiver)
See Appendix I for noise monitoring data. 1 The equivalent noise level (Leq) is defined as the single steady A-weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time (essentially, the average noise level). For this measurement, the Leq was over a 15-minute period (Leq[15]). 2Distance from centerline of High Street. 3Distance from centerline of High Street. 4Distance from centerline of Walnut Street. Note: During Noise Measurement 1, a train passed by approximately 150 feet south of Noise Measurement Location 1. Additionally, train crossing bells were sounding. Source: Rincon Consultants, field measurements on June 12, 2018 using ANSI Type II Integrating sound level meter.
In addition, a 24-hour noise measurement was taken from 8:43 a.m. on Wednesday, October 2, 2019 to 8:43 a.m. on Thursday, October 3, 2019. The 24-hour noise level was measured as 69 CNEL. Table 19 summarizes the hourly results of the 24-hour noise measurement. See Figure 4 for the noise measurement location.
82 Environmental Checklist Noise
Figure 4 Sound Level Measurement Locations
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 83 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
Table 19 24-Hour Sound Level Monitoring Results
Time Hourly Leq (dBA) 8:00 – 9:00 a.m. 55.3
9:00 – 10:00 a.m. 51.7
10:00 – 11:00 a.m. 50.1
11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. 52.7
12:00 – 1:00 p.m. 52.3
1:00 – 2:00 p.m. 54.0
2:00 – 3:00 p.m. 63.1
3:00 – 4:00 p.m. 52.4
4:00 – 5:00 p.m. 68.0
5:00 – 6:00 p.m. 51.9
6:00 – 7:00 p.m. 61.4
7:00 – 8:00 p.m. 77.5
8:00 – 9:00 p.m. 59.5
9:00 – 10:00 p.m. 48.2
10:00 – 11:00 p.m. 46.8
11:00 p.m. – 12:00 a.m. 43.8
12:00 – 1:00 a.m. 44.3
1:00 – 2:00 a.m. 43.0
2:00 – 3:00 a.m. 40.8
3:00 – 4:00 a.m. 44.7
4:00 – 5:00 a.m. 48.8
5:00 – 6:00 a.m. 49.7
6:00 – 7:00 a.m. 55.2
7:00 – 8:00 a.m. 59.0
Leq = average noise level equivalent; dBA = A-weighted decibel See Appendix I for noise monitoring data. Source: Rincon Consultants, field measurement from October 2, 2019 to October 3, 2019 using ANSI Type II Integrating sound level meter.
84 Environmental Checklist Noise
RAILWAY NOISE The existing industrial and commercial buildings on-site partially block the line of sight between the railway and adjacent commercial development across High Street. As discussed under Noise Background, a single row of intervening structures between a noise source and a receiver provides a 5 dBA reduction in noise levels (FTA 2018). Therefore, existing buildings on-site provide a 5 dBA reduction in intermittent noise from railway operations at nearby commercial properties.
Sensitive Receivers Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with those uses. Noise sensitive land uses typically include residences, hospitals, schools guest lodging, libraries, and parks. The closest residences are located approximately 105 feet north of the project site across High Street, which are shielded by various commercial uses along High Street, and approximately 175 feet south of the project site across the existing railway. Additionally, the proposed project would include 91 residential units, which would be new sensitive receivers. a. Would the project result generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Construction Noise Impacts Construction of the proposed project, including the demolition of existing commercial and industrial buildings, would generate temporary noise that would exceed existing ambient noise levels in the project site vicinity, but would cease upon project completion. Noise impacts associated with construction activity are a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, the location and sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the noise-generating activities. Noise levels from individual pieces of construction equipment and the combined operation of multiple pieces of equipment are based on the FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook (2006). Peak noise levels associated with the use of individual pieces of heavy equipment can range from about 70 to 89 dBA at 50 feet from the source, depending upon the types of equipment in operation at any given time and phase of construction (FHWA 2006). Table 20 shows estimated project construction noise by phase for multiple pieces of construction equipment operating simultaneously and the typical overall noise level that would be expected during each phase. Table 20 also shows the maximum hourly construction noise levels (Leq) for the nearest commercial and residential properties located approximately 75 feet and 105 feet from the project site, respectively.
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 85 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
Table 20 Construction Noise Levels by Phase
Estimated Noise at 75 feet at Commercial Estimated Noise at Properties 105 feet at Residences Construction Phase Equipment (dBA Leq) (dBA Leq)
Demolition Concrete Saw, Dozer, 81.4 78.5 Backhoe/Tractors (3)
Site Preparation Grader, Scraper, Backhoe/Tractor 80.3 77.4
Grading Grader, Dozer, Backhoe/Tractors (2) 80.1 77.2
Building Construction Crane, Forklift (2), Generator, 78.0 75.0 Backhoe/Tractor, Welders (3)
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixer, Paver, 81.2 78.3 Paving Equipment, Rollers (2), Backhoe/Tractor
Architectural Coating Air Compressor 70.2 67.2
Note: See Appendix C for CalEEMod construction list and Appendix I for RCNM data sheets.
As shown in Table 20, operation of equipment during various phases of construction could generate maximum noise levels of approximately 70 to 81 dBA Leq at the nearest commercial properties and average hourly noise levels of approximately 67 to 79 dBA Leq at the nearest residences. These construction noise levels would exceed the existing ambient noise level of 69 dBA (which includes railway noise) and therefore would be the dominant source of ambient noise during construction. Average hourly construction noise levels would exceed the MMC daytime residential standard for mobile and stationary construction equipment of 75 dBA Leq. Furthermore, maximum construction noise levels would exceed the MMC daytime commercial standard for mobile equipment of 75 dBA Leq and the daytime commercial standard for stationary equipment of 65 dBA Leq. It should be noted, however, that construction-related noise disturbances would be temporary in nature, and peak noise levels would likely occur during the initial demolition and grading phases. The following mitigation measure would be required to reduce the effects of temporary construction noise on nearby receivers to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
N-1 Construction Noise ▪ Operate all diesel equipment with closed engine doors and equip all diesel equipment with mufflers that reduce construction equipment noise by at least 5 dBA. ▪ For stationary equipment, designate equipment areas with appropriate acoustic shielding on building and grading plans and locate these areas to maximize the distance between the activity and the existing commercial uses. Equipment and shielding will be installed prior to construction and remain in designated location throughout construction activities. Appropriate acoustic shielding shall completely obscure the noise source from sensitive receptors along the north
86 Environmental Checklist Noise
side of High Street. The shielding shall be non-reflective and shall composed of sound absorbing materials like vinyl, polyester, wool, woven fiberglass, or wood. ▪ Electrical power shall be used to run to run air compressors and similar power tools and to power any temporary structures, such as construction trailers. ▪ Require all contractors, as a condition of contract, to maintain and tune-up all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions and provide monthly reports documenting equipment maintenance activities. ▪ Erect temporary sound barriers along the northern boundary of the project site between active on-site construction work using heavy equipment and adjacent receivers (commercial properties). Such barriers will be of sufficient height to break the line-of-sight between noise- generating equipment and the noise-sensitive receiver, and will be continuous with no gaps or holes between panels or the ground. Temporary sound barriers may include noise curtains, sound blankets, or solid temporary barriers. ▪ The applicant shall retain a City-approved noise consultant to conduct a noise survey at the beginning of each phase of construction (i.e., demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating) and when the equipment mix changes significantly (e.g., heavy-duty pieces of equipment begin to be utilized during a certain phase that differ from those utilized during the start of that phase). Noise monitoring shall occur over the course of the first full day of construction activities and shall commence at the start of daily construction activities (including equipment warm-up) and end when all heavy-duty equipment has been shut down for the day. If the noise survey measures construction noise levels that are within 3 dBA of the limits specified in Moorpark Municipal Code Section 17.53.070, Tables 1, 2, and 2A, the noise consultant shall conduct continuous monitoring during construction activities over the course of three consecutive days to verify noise levels. If the noise limits specified in Moorpark Municipal Code Section 17.53.070, Tables 1, 2, and 2A are exceeded, significant noise-generating construction activities shall halt, and the applicant shall develop a noise control plan that includes additional noise reduction measures, including but not limited to installing sound barriers of greater height and scheduling construction activities such that fewer pieces of construction equipment are in operation at any given time. Upon completion of the noise control plan, construction activities shall recommence with implementation of the additional noise control measures, at which time the noise consultant shall perform an additional noise survey to evaluate the effectiveness of the additional measures. The noise consultant shall prepare a brief memorandum summarizing the results of the noise survey conducted for each phase of construction, for any times when the equipment mix changes significantly, and for times at which implementation of a noise control plan is required. The memorandum shall be submitted to the City within five working days of the noise survey.
Installation of temporary sound attenuating barriers between construction activities and adjacent sensitive receivers typically provides 10 to 20 dBA attenuation (Federal Highway Administration 2017). Table 21 summarizes mitigated construction noise levels by phase, conservatively assuming a 10 dBA reduction from the barriers. As shown therein, maximum construction noise levels would be reduced to approximately 60 to 72 dBA Leq at the nearest commercial properties, which would be below the City’s standard of 75 dBA Leq daytime commercial standard for mobile equipment and the 65 dBA Leq daytime commercial standard for stationary equipment. Furthermore, maximum construction noise levels would be reduced to approximately 57 to 71 dBA Leq, which would not exceed the MMC 75 dBA Leq daytime residential standard for mobile and stationary equipment. Residences and commercial properties would not be exposed to excessive noise during nighttime
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 87 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development hours because the MMC restricts construction to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Mondays through Saturdays. Furthermore, residences located to the north of the project site would be shielded by existing commercial properties located along High Street and would be separated by High Street itself, which would further attenuate construction noise. Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation, the project would be consistent with MMC construction noise standards.
Table 21 Mitigated Construction Noise Levels by Phase
Estimated Noise at 75 feet at Commercial Estimated Noise at Properties 105 feet at Residences Construction Phase Equipment (dBA Leq) (dBA Leq)
Demolition Concrete Saw, Dozer, 69.9 67.0 Backhoe/Tractors (3)
Site Preparation Grader, Scraper, Backhoe/Tractor 65.3 62.4
Grading Grader, Dozer, Backhoe/Tractors (2) 65.1 62.2
Building Construction Crane, Forklift (2), Generator, 67.0 64.1 Backhoe/Tractor, Welders (3)
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixer, Paver, 72.4 70.6 Paving Equipment, Rollers (2), Backhoe/Tractor
Architectural Coating Air Compressor 60.2 57.2
Note: See Appendix C for CalEEMod construction list and Appendix I for RCNM data sheets.
Railway Noise Impacts Existing business owners along High Street have expressed concerns about the potential for an increase in train-related noise during project construction, specifically between the period of removal of the existing commercial and industrial buildings and construction of the proposed project. The removal of existing buildings would result in up to a 5 dBA increase in the noise from railway operations at adjacent commercial properties located north of the project site across High Street. However, on-site construction noise would still be the dominant source of noise during construction and therefore no perceptible increase in train noise is anticipated upon completion of building demolition. Furthermore, the increase in railway noise would be temporary because construction of the proposed development would result in a row of structures, most of which would be approximately 35 feet height, that would exceed the height of the majority of existing structures (with the exception of the existing granary building tower) and would cover more of the project site, thereby breaking the line of sight between the railway and the adjacent commercial properties and providing more effective sound attenuation at the commercial properties located north of the project site than experienced under existing conditions (FTA 2018). Furthermore, the proposed project buildings would be constructed of materials such as metal, wood, and brick, and the interior walls would be lined with sound-attenuating insulation. The resulting increase in wall density would provide greater sound attenuation when compared to existing conditions (Federal Highway Administration 1974). Therefore, railway noise impacts during project construction would be less
88 Environmental Checklist Noise than significant. Nevertheless, the project schedule included in the Development Agreement would require the construction of new buildings to occur immediately after completion of all on-site demolition activities.
Operational Noise Impacts The proposed project would introduce new residences and commercial uses to the project site and would result in new on-site sources of noise including HVAC equipment, outdoor recreation uses, delivery and trash-hauling trucks, and parking lot activities as well as off-site roadway noise impacts. Existing sensitive receivers near the project site and proposed new uses on-site may be subject to noise associated with operation of the proposed project.
HVAC Equipment Mechanical equipment on the project site would include HVAC equipment. This equipment typically is placed on the roof or within mechanical equipment rooms and is not usually a significant source of noise. Noise from HVAC equipment ranges from 60 to 70 dBA Leq at 15 feet from the source (Illingworth & Rodkin 2009). For a conservative estimate, this analysis assumes that HVAC equipment generates a noise level of 70 dBA Leq at 15 feet from the source. Based on the project plans, HVAC equipment could be located 90 feet from commercial properties and 190 feet from the nearest residence. Given that the project would include six separate buildings, this analysis conservatively assumes that each building would house its own HVAC equipment. Based on the typical attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance, noise from HVAC equipment at the nearest commercial property would be 63.8 dBA Leq, and noise at the nearest residence would be 60.9 dBA Leq. HVAC equipment noise levels would not exceed the City’s exterior daytime standard of 65 dBA Leq for general commercial uses but would exceed the exterior daytime standard of 60 dBA Leq for residential uses. Furthermore, noise levels could exceed the City’s exterior nighttime standards of 60 dBA for general commercial uses and 55 dBA Leq for residential uses. Therefore, mitigation measure N-2 would be required to reduce the HVAC equipment noise levels below the City’s exterior nighttime standards and reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Outdoor Recreational Uses Outdoor recreational uses associated with the project would include the plaza and patio located in the commercial component of the project as well as open space located on the western portion of the project site. These outdoor recreational uses would be utilized by on-site residents and by employees and/or customers of the proposed commercial uses. Residential units would also include decks on the second and third floor. Noise levels associated with residential decks would also be negligible because the proposed building would be two to three stories tall and commercial uses adjacent to the project site are only one or two stories in height. In social situations, people often talk at distances of approximately 3 to 13 feet. A typical voice level at this distance is approximately 60 dBA (The Engineering Toolbox n.d.). As shown in Table 18, ambient noise levels at the project site range from 65 to 69 dBA Leq. On-site human voices would not typically generate an audible noise level increase in excess of the existing noise environment. In addition, such noise would be temporary and intermittent and would be similar to what is generated at existing nearby commercial development. Residents would also be subject to the provisions of Section 17.53.050 of the MMC, which prohibits any person from willfully or negligently making or continuing any loud, unnecessary, or unusual noise which disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or which causes any discomfort or
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 89 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitivity residing in the area. In addition, Section 17.53.070 of the MMC prohibits the use of any radio, television set, stereo or digital equipment, drum, musical instrument, or similar device that would disturb nearby residences or businesses. Noise levels would be consistent with existing ambient noise levels, and proposed outdoor recreational uses would not generate an audible increase in the ambient noise environment. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Delivery and Trash Hauling Trucks The proposed mixed use project would require periodic delivery and trash hauling services, which generate noise from idling, loading and unloading activities, and back-up alarms. The project site is located in an urbanized area and is surrounded by existing commercial uses and a railroad. Therefore, delivery and trash trucks are already a common occurrence in the project vicinity. According to the project site plans, loading areas would be developed adjacent to the commercial components on its southeast corner (see Figure 3). Delivery and trash-hauling trucks would use these areas for loading and unloading activities throughout which temporary noise would be generated. The loading area would be located 140 feet from commercial properties and 200 feet from the nearest residence. Delivery trucks are assumed to generate a noise level of 68 dBA Lmax at 30 feet from the source (Charles M. Salter 2017). Based on an attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance, the maximum anticipated noise levels from delivery and haul trucks within the loading dock area would be 54.6 dBA Lmax at commercial properties and 51.5 dBA Lmax at the nearest residences. Noise levels from delivery and trash trucks would not exceed the City’s exterior daytime standards of 65 dBA Leq for general commercial uses and 60 dBA Leq for residential uses. Noise levels would also not exceed the City’s exterior nighttime standards of 60 dBA for general commercial uses and 55 dBA Leq for residential uses. In addition, the existing nearby commercial properties would be shielded by the proposed buildings on-site, which would further attenuate delivery and haul truck equipment noise. Impacts would be less than significant.
Parking Noise Nearby residences would be exposed to noise from parking lot activities on the project site. The major noise sources associated with parking lot activities include moving cars, engine start-ups, door slams, radios, car alarms, and tire squeals (human conversations are generally dominated by other sources of vehicle noise in a parking lot). Parking lot activity is assumed to generate instantaneous noise levels up to 66 dBA Lmax at 100 feet from the source (Gordon Bricken & Associates 1996). The closest on-site parking stall is located approximately 130 feet from the nearest commercial property and approximately 220 feet from the nearest residential property line. Based on an attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance, parking lot noise would be 63.7 dBA Lmax at commercial properties and 59.2 dBA Lmax at the nearest residences. Noise levels from parking activities would not exceed the City’s exterior daytime standards of 65 dBA for general commercial uses and 60 dBA for residential uses. Maximum parking lot noise levels would exceed the City’s exterior nighttime standards of 60 dBA for general commercial uses and 55 dBA for residential uses. However, peak noise levels from parking lot noise would be intermittent, and when averaged over a one-hour period, peak noise levels would not exceed ambient noise levels on the site, which are dominated by traffic and railway noise (see Table 18). Therefore, parking lot noise would not exceed 5 dBA over the exterior nighttime standards for more than a cumulative 15 minutes in one hour. In addition, nearby commercial properties would be shielded by the proposed buildings on-site, which would further attenuate parking lot noise. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
90 Environmental Checklist Noise
Off-site Transportation Noise The project would generate vehicle trips, thereby increasing traffic on area roadways as a result of the project. According to the Traffic and Parking Study prepared for the project (Appendix D), the project would generate approximately 1,703 average daily trips (ADT). Roadway noise was modeled using the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Exchange DNL Calculator. HUD Day Night average level (DNL) utilizes the DNL method that adds 10 dBA to actual nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise levels to account for greater sensitivity to noise during that time period. DNL was used to analyze project impacts from roadway noise on sensitive receivers near East High Street, Moorpark Avenue, and Spring Road. Roadway noise impacts on sensitive receivers near East Los Angeles Avenue were not evaluated because project- related traffic would not add a significant number of trips to the segment of East Los Angeles Avenue between Moorpark Avenue and Spring Road (ATE 2019). The Traffic and Parking Study (Appendix D) provided peak hour trip rates for area roadways, and ADT were estimated by multiplying total PM peak hour traffic volumes by an industry-standard factor of 10. It was assumed that cars make up 97 percent of ADT, medium trucks make up 2 percent, and heavy trucks account for 1 percent. Additional model assumptions include a standard estimate of 15 percent of daily trips occurring at night, a standard estimate of a 2 percent road gradient, and vehicle speeds consistent with posted speed limits on Moorpark Avenue, Spring Road, and East High Street. Sensitive receivers are also exposed to railway noise from the existing railroad line that serves Metrolink, Amtrak, and Union Pacific routes. Therefore, railway noise was added to the transportation noise models for an accurate representation of existing noise conditions. The HUD DNL Calculator incorporates railway noise through distance to the train tracks, average train speed, engines per train, railway cars per train, number of trains per day, the percentage of trains at night, the presence of whistles and horns, and if the tracks have bolted or welded tracks. This analysis includes the following conservative assumptions: ▪ All trains would be diesel-powered with a default average train speed of 30 miles per hour ▪ Whistles and horns are used, and tracks are bolted. ▪ Passenger trains Each passenger train has one engine and five railway cars, which was assumed to be typical of Metrolink and Amtrak trains. At the Moorpark station, Metrolink trains make 16 daily stops on Mondays through Fridays with no service offered on Saturdays and Sundays, and Amtrak trains make 11 daily stops on Mondays through Sundays (Metrolink 2019, Amtrak 2018). Therefore, this analysis conservatively assumes average passenger train operations of 27 trains per day4. Of these 27 daily trains, four pass through the Moorpark station during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.); therefore, this analysis uses a night fraction of 15 percent (4 divided by 27).
▪ Freight trains Each freight train has two engines and 50 railway cars.
4 Based on a comment letter from the Southern Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), approximately 14 Metrolink and 12 Amtrak train operations occur per day. The analysis in the IS-MND remains unchanged as the analysis conservatively analyzes a total of 27 train trips per day compared to the 26 identified by SCRRA.
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 91 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
In 2013, Union Pacific estimated an average daily volume of 1,100 cars at the West Colton railyard, which is located approximately 88 miles southeast of the project site. Based on the traffic density map, approximately 20 percent of these cars travel through the Moorpark Station (Union Pacific Corporation 2013). Therefore, average freight train operations for this segment of railway are approximately 4 trains per day (220 cars divided by 50 cars per train). This analysis assumes a model default night fraction of 15 percent for freight rail.
Table 22 summarizes the average noise levels at the closest residences under existing and existing plus project conditions, including traffic along High Street, Moorpark Avenue, Spring Road, and East Long Angeles Avenue. For roadways where the existing noise level is between 65 and 74 CNEL, the FTA recommends a significance threshold of 1 CNEL (FTA 2018). The increase of ADT under existing conditions would result in increases in roadway noise of less than 0.1 dBA at all roadway segments analyzed, which would not exceed the significance threshold of 1 dBA. Therefore, the project’s contribution to existing traffic noise levels in the project site vicinity would be less than significant.
Table 22 Existing Plus Project Roadway and Railway Noise Levels Noise Level (CNEL)1
Existing Change in Significance Plus Noise Threshold Significant Roadway Segment Existing Project Level (CNEL) Impact?
High Street (Moorpark Avenue to 71.22 71.2 < 0.1 1 No Spring Road)
Moorpark Avenue (Poindexter Avenue 75.5 75.5 < 0.1 1 No to East Los Angeles Avenue)
Spring Road (High Street to East 75.8 75.8 < 0.1 1 No Los Angeles Avenue)
See Appendix I for HUD DNL Calculator outputs. 1 The HUD DNL Calculator calculates noise in Ldn; however, Ldn and CNEL are interchangeable. 2 The modeled existing noise level along High Street is within 3 dBA of the measured existing noise level of 69 CNEL; therefore, modeled noise levels adequately represent real-life conditions (see Ambient Noise Levels).
Table 23 summarizes the average noise levels at the closest residences under cumulative and cumulative project conditions. In contrast to the results above that consider existing conditions, these results are based on changes in traffic volume anticipated in the near future, taking into account cumulative growth. The increase of ADT under cumulative plus project conditions would result in cumulative increases in roadway noise of 0.4 dBA or less at all roadway segments analyzed. Of this, the project’s contribution would be approximately 0.1 dBA, which would not exceed the significance threshold of 1 dBA. Therefore, the project’s contribution to cumulative traffic noise levels in the project site vicinity would be less than significant.
92 Environmental Checklist Noise
Table 23 Cumulative Plus Project Roadway and Railway Noise Levels
Noise Level (CNEL)1
Cumulative Cumulative Significance Plus Change in Project Threshold Significant Roadway Segment Existing Cumulative Project Noise Level Contribution (CNEL) Impact?
High Street (Moorpark 71.2 71.3 71.4 0.2 0.1 1 No Avenue to Spring Road)
Moorpark Avenue 75.5 75.8 75.9 0.4 0.1 1 No (Poindexter Avenue to East Los Angeles Avenue)
Spring Road (High Street to 75.8 76.1 76.2 0.4 0.1 1 No East Los Angeles Avenue)
See Appendix I for HUD DNL Calculator outputs. 1 The HUD DNL Calculator calculates noise in Ldn; however, Ldn and CNEL are interchangeable.
Impacts to Proposed Residential Units (Noise/Land Use Compatibility) The ruling for California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (CBIA v. BAAQMD) determined that under CEQA, except for a few specified and limited instances, noise impacts on residents of a proposed project are not required to be analyzed. Therefore, the following discussion is provided for informational purposes only. The City of Moorpark General Plan Noise Element establishes “clearly compatible” noise standards for single-family and multiple-family residential land uses of 65 CNEL for the exterior environment, 55 CNEL for the interior environment with windows open, and 45 CNEL for the interior environment with windows closed (City of Moorpark 1998). As discussed under Ambient Noise Levels, the existing ambient noise level at the project site are approximately 69 CNEL, which exceeds the City’s “clearly compatible” exterior noise standard of 65 CNEL for multiple-family residential land uses. However, the existing ambient noise level of 69 CNEL falls within the “normally compatible” range of 65 to 70 CNEL for multiple family residential land uses. Per guidance in Table 1 of the Noise Element, new construction or development proposed in areas with ambient noise levels in the “normally compatible” range should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Therefore, in order to comply with the City’s noise standards, the project would be required to incorporate design features such as noise barriers, Sound Transmission Class (STC)-rated windows and doors, orientation of windows away from the railroad, upgraded exterior wall and/or roof construction, insulation batts, and/or forced air ventilation that reduce exterior and interior noise levels to below the City’s standards. To verify that the building has been properly designed, the City may require an acoustical study as a condition of approval.
Mitigation Measure
N-2 HVAC Equipment Noise A noise barrier (such as a screen or parapet) shall be installed around HVAC equipment. To be an effective noise barrier, the screen or parapet should extend at least one foot above the tallest rooftop piece of HVAC equipment and be of sufficient length to block line of sight between the
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 93 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
HVAC units and the nearest commercial and residential properties. The screen or parapet shall achieve at least a 6 dBA reduction in HVAC equipment noise.
After mitigation, noise from HVAC equipment would be reduced to 57.8 dBA Leq at the nearest commercial properties and 54.9 dBA Leq at the nearest residential properties. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? As a residential and commercial use, the proposed project would not generate significant stationary sources of vibration, such as heavy equipment operations. Operational vibration in the project vicinity would be generated by additional vehicular travel on local roadways; however, any increase in traffic related vibration levels would not be perceptible as the project would only incrementally increase existing traffic volumes on local roadways. Therefore, operation of the proposed residential development would not generate significant ground-borne vibration and this analysis considers vibration impacts only from project construction. Table 24 lists ground-borne vibration levels for project construction equipment including a loaded truck, dozer, and roller at 105 feet from the source, the distance to the nearest noise sensitive receiver. As shown in Table 24, the highest impact piece of equipment that would be used during project construction (see Appendix C) is the vibratory roller, which is anticipated to be using during the paving phase of project construction.
Table 24 Vibration Level for Construction Equipment Equipment Approximate VdB at Single-Family Residences (105 ft.)
Loaded Truck 67 Dozer 68 Roller 76
Source: See Appendix I for vibration analysis.
As shown in Table 24, project construction would generate peak vibration levels ranging from 67 VdB to 76 VdB at the residences to the north. Although vibration levels may be intermittently perceptible during daytime construction activities, construction would be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday per Section 17.53.070 of the MMC and would not disrupt residences during recognized hours of sleep. Ground-borne vibration would not reach levels that could cause building damage (100 VdB) at structures in the project site vicinity. Therefore, the project would not generate significant vibration impacts. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
94 Environmental Checklist Noise c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The closest public and public use airports to the project site are the Santa Paula Airport, which is approximately 11.5 miles northwest of the project site, and the Camarillo Airport, which is approximately 13 miles southwest of the project site. The project site is not located within an airport influence area or an airport runway protection zone. There are no nearby private airstrips within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no impact related to airport and airstrip noise would occur. NO IMPACT
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 95 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
This page intentionally left blank.
96 Environmental Checklist Population and Housing 14 Population and Housing Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? □ □ ■ □ b. Displace substantial amounts of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? □ □ □ ■ a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? According to the CDOF, the current population of Moorpark is estimated at 37,020 (CDOF 2019a) with a forecasted population of 43,000 for the year 2040 (SCAG 2016). This is an increase of 5,980 (16 percent) residents. The proposed project involves construction of 91 residential apartment units and approximately 15,018 sf of commercial space. The commercial spaces are envisioned to include a 3,824-sf brewery or winery, a 1,386-sf restaurant, a 1,408-sf coffee or ice cream shop, and 8,400 sf of neighborhood-serving retail space. Based on the CDOF estimate of an average of 3.32 persons per household in the City of Moorpark, the addition of 91 units would generate approximately 302 residents. As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, the proposed project is estimated to generate 88 new jobs. While it should not be assumed that all employees would become new residents of Moorpark (they may, for example, already live in the City or live outside of the City after they are hired), if they did, generated employees would create an additional population growth of 88 residents for a total estimated population growth of 390 (302 plus 88). Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would increase the City’s estimated existing population of 37,020 to 37,410, which would still be within SCAG’s 2040 population forecast of 43,000 (SCAG 2016). Impacts relating to substantial population growth would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The project does not propose any demolition of residential structures. The project involves development of 91 residential units and approximately 15,018 sf of commercial space on a parcel that is currently developed with an abandoned granary and non-operational industrial buildings. The project would have no impacts relating to the displacement of housing or people. NO IMPACT
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 97 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
This page intentionally left blank.
98 Environmental Checklist Public Services
15 Public Services Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 1 Fire protection? □ □ ■ □
2 Police protection? □ □ ■ □
3 Schools? □ □ ■ □
4 Parks? □ □ ■ □
5 Other public facilities? □ □ ■ □ a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? The project site is serviced by the Ventura County Fire Department (VCFD). The VCFD provides a full range of emergency and non-emergency services to the community. In 2016, the VCFD had 637 personnel and served more than 480,000 people in the unincorporated areas of Ventura County and six of its cities including: Ojai, Port Hueneme, Moorpark, Camarillo, Simi Valley, and Thousand Oaks. This is a staffing ratio of approximately 0.75 per 1,000 residents (VCFD 2016). Response time to incidents for a fire service call to the downtown area of Moorpark average six minutes or less (Moorpark 2006). The closest fire station to the project site is Fire Station 42, which is just northeast of the project site across High Street (located at 295 High Street). Construction activity would increase traffic adjacent to the project site during working hours because commuting construction workers, trucks, and other large construction vehicles would temporarily be added to normal traffic. Slow moving construction traffic along local roadways may reduce optimal traffic flows on these roadways and could delay emergency vehicles or contribute to a vehicle accident. This potential fire hazard impact would be minimal due to the temporary nature
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 99 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development of construction traffic and implementation of standard construction practices (i.e., flagmen, detours, etc.). During the project’s operational phase, the frequency of emergency calls may incrementally increase because residential uses would be introduced to the site. For a residential project, the majority of calls are likely to be emergency medical and rescue. The project would be required to conform to the California Fire Code and follow requirements in the Moorpark Municipal Code, which requires integration of fire safety features such as fire sprinklers, fire hydrants, and water service infrastructure capable of delivering the required fire flows rates. According to Section 14, Population and Housing, the project could increase the population of the City of Moorpark by 390 people, if all employees were to relocate to the City. However, this addition would not significantly affect the staffing ratio. In addition, the project site is within the VCFD’s current service area and the industrial buildings onsite are currently served by the VCFD, therefore this increase would not create the need for new or expanded fire protection facilities. Therefore, the project’s impacts to fire protection would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? The City of Moorpark contracts out police services to the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department. The nearest police department is approximately 0.7 mile southeast of the project site. In fiscal year 2017-2018, the city was allocated approximately 28 sworn officers from the County Sheriff’s Department. This is a staffing ratio of approximately 1.3 officers per 1,000 residents. The Ventura County Sheriff’s Department has an average response time of 6.44 minutes to emergency calls and 16.43 minutes to non-emergency calls (Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission [LAFCo] 2018). The project could increase the population of Moorpark by 390 people, if all employees were to relocate to the City. The increase in population would not alter the current officer staffing ratio and would not create the need for new or expanded police protection facilities. Therefore, the project’s impacts to police protection would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? The City of Moorpark is served by the Moorpark Unified School District (MUSD), which has four preschools, five elementary schools, one kindergarten through eighth grade school, two middle schools, and two high schools. The project would increase the population of the City of Moorpark by 390 people if all future employees were to relocate to the City. According to the 2017-2018 Second Interim Report for the MUSD Fiscal Services, enrollment within the district has been declining over the last six years and is projected to continue to decline. To offset a project’s potential impact on schools, Government Code 65995 (b) establishes the base amount of allowable developer fees a school district can collect from development projects located within its boundaries. The fees obtained by MUSD are used to maintain the desired school capacity and the maintenance and/or
100 Environmental Checklist Public Services development of new school facilities. The project applicant would be required to pay the state- mandated school impact fees. Pursuant to Section 65995 (3)(h) of the California Government Code (Senate Bill 50, chaptered August 27, 1998), the payment of statutory fees “…is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization.” The project proponent would be required to pay the school impact development mitigation fees (Moorpark Municipal Code, 17.76.060, Fees). Therefore, with the required payment of mitigation fees, the project’s impacts to schools would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? The City of Moorpark maintains 20 parks, which include 18 playgrounds, 10 outdoor courts, 39 ball fields, one skate park, five trails, and other park and recreational facilities within approximately 153 acres of parkland. The City of Moorpark has a goal to provide five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents according to its Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2009). The City is not currently meeting this goal and instead provides approximately 4 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. However, the City is financing several capital improvement projects that will support its park and recreation program and will include improvements, upgrades, and expansions to existing parkland. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan states that with the 2040 population projection of 47,739 residents, 238 acres of parkland would be required to meet its goals. However, the City also states that 238 acres of parkland is not realistic and that instead, the City will need to share resources and convert unused or underused spaces in order to serve the population. Construction of the proposed project would increase the City’s population by 390 people if all future employees were to relocate to the City. Although the City is not currently meeting its goal of providing five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, the City has a plan to increase park space for its residents. The addition of 390 residents from the proposed project would not alter the current ratio of parkland to residents. In addition, the proposed project would include open space for its residents and a public plaza. Therefore, the project would not substantially increase the need for new or physically altered parks in the City and impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public facilities? Development of the proposed project would result in incremental impacts to the City’s public services and facilities such as storm drain usage, solid-waste disposal, water usage, and wastewater disposal. Refer to the impact analysis in Section 10 Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 19, Utilities and Service Systems, for discussion of the proposed project’s impacts to public services and facilities. Other commonly used public facilities include libraries and medical facilities. As discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, the proposed project would increase the City’s population by approximately 390 residents, if all employees relocated to Moorpark. However, the project site is
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 101 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development located in the downtown portion of the City, which is currently serviced by existing public libraries and medical facilities. These facilities would continue to accommodate the needs of the City. Because the proposed project would not substantially increase the City’s population, increased demand on existing libraries and medical facilities would be negligible. Impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
102 Environmental Checklist Recreation 16 Recreation Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? □ □ ■ □ b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? □ □ ■ □ a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? As discussed in Section 15, Public Services, the City currently owns and operates a total of 20 public parks, open space areas, and recreation sites, occupying approximately 153 acres of land (Ventura LAFCo 2018). These areas are all part of the City’s recreation and parks system. The closest public park to the project site is the Veteran’s Memorial, located approximately 0.4 mile southeast of the project site. The City recognizes that parkland space is limited and that it is not realistic to increase the amount of parkland space to five acres per 1,000 residents in order to meet 2040 population projections. However, the City has a goal to increase park space by expanding where it can and also repurposing underused areas in order to serve the needs of the current residents. As discussed in Section 14 Population and Housing, construction of the proposed project could increase the City’s population by 390 people if all future employees were to relocate to the City. The project would include outdoor space for residents, such as open space in the western portion of the site and a public plaza and patio located in the commercial component of the site. These outdoor areas would help the City further its plan of repurposing underused areas as recreational and open space since the project site is currently occupied by an abandoned granary and non-operational industrial buildings. As such, an increased demand for parks or recreational services would not occur from the proposed project. Accordingly, the project would have a less than significant impact on recreation resources. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 103 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
This page intentionally left blank.
104 Environmental Checklist Transportation 17 Transportation Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? □ ■ □ □ b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? □ □ ■ □ c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? □ □ ■ □
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ ■ □ a. Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? A traffic report was completed for the project by Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE) on December 10, 2019 (Appendix D). The report describes existing conditions, project trip generation rates, and the impact of the project on existing conditions. It also includes an analysis of the proposed and developing projects in the vicinity of the project’s related impacts to traffic and circulation in a future setting. The project site is served by a system of highways, arterial roads and collector streets. Traffic flow on urban arterials is most constrained at intersections. Therefore, a detailed analysis of traffic flows must examine the operating conditions of critical intersections during peak travel periods. Levels of Service (LOS) A through F are used to rate intersection operations with LOS A indicating free flow operations and LOS F indicating congested operations. In the City of Moorpark, LOS C is the minimum acceptable operating standard for intersections. The City of Moorpark Circulation Element contains Policy 2.1, which states that Level of Service (LOS) C shall be the system performance objective. For facilities already operating at LOS C, the system performance objective shall be to maintain or improve the current level of service. The City of Moorpark “Guidelines for Preparing Traffic and Circulation Studies” states that if a level of service degradation of one level of service or greater is attributable to a project, it will be considered significant enough to require mitigation measures. The City’s criteria also state that a level of service degradation of less than one level of service may also be considered significant, depending on circumstances.
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 105 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
Existing Conditions The existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the study area intersections were calculated based on vehicle trips counts collected by ATE in June 2018. Existing LOS for the study area intersections were calculated using the “Intersection Capacity Utilization” (ICU) methodology adopted by the City of Moorpark. Worksheets illustrating the LOS calculations are contained in the Technical Appendix of the traffic study (Appendix D). Table 25 below lists the existing LOS for the study area intersections during the AM and PM peak hour periods.
Table 25 Existing Peak Hour Levels of Service AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS Moorpark Avenue/High Street 0.68 B 0.68 B Spring Road/High Street 0.63 B 0.72 C Moorpark Avenue/Poindexter Avenue 0.68 B 0.67 B Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue 0.65 B 0.68 B Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road 0.70 B 0.70 B
ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization, LOS = Level of Service Source: ATE 2019
As shown in Table 25, intersections in the study area currently operate at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hour periods, which meets the City’s LOS C standard.
Project Trip Generation Trip generation estimates were calculated for the proposed project based on the rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, 10th Edition for Multi-Family Housing (Land Use Code #220), Shopping Center (Land Use Code #820), and High Turnover Restaurant (Land Use Code #932). The proposed project would generate approximately 1,725 average daily trips (ADT), 78 AM peak hour trips, and 147 PM peak hour trips. Table 26 below summarizes the average daily AM and PM peak hour trip generation estimates for the project. The traffic report utilizes a mixed-use model and a transit-oriented development (TOD) factor to account for the mixed-use nature of the project site and its proximity to public transit. Therefore, the traffic report assumes that 10 percent of AM peak hour trips and 36 percent of PM peak hour trips would be internal to the project and that approximately 10 percent of external project trips would be transit-oriented.
106 Environmental Checklist Transportation
Table 26 Project Weekday Peak Hour Trip Generation
ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Size Rate Trips Rate Trips (In/Out) Rate Trips (In/Out) Apartments 91 units 7.32 666 0.46 42 (10/32) 0.56 51 (32/19)
Brewery 3,824 sf 112.18 429 0.00 0 (0/0) 9.77 37 (23/14)
Restaurant 2,794 sf 112.18 313 9.94 28 (15/13) 9.77 27 (17/10)
Retail 8,400 sf 37.75 317 0.94 8 (5/3) 3.81 32 (15/17) Commercial Total Trip Generation 1,725 78 (30/48) 147 (87/60)
ADT = Average Daily Trips Source: ATE 2019
Project Trip Distribution and Assignment The project-generated AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes were distributed and assigned to the adjacent street network based on percentages from recent traffic studies, existing traffic patterns observed in the study-area and consideration of the most logical travel routes for drivers accessing the proposed development (Appendix D).
Project-Specific Impacts LOS was calculated for the study area intersections assuming the Existing plus Project volumes. Table 27 shows the results of the calculation and identifies the project’s impacts based on the City of Moorpark thresholds. Table 27 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Levels of Service Existing Existing plus Project Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS Change Impact? AM Peak Hour Moorpark Avenue/High Street 0.68 B 0.69 B No No Spring Road/High Street 0.63 B 0.64 B No No Moorpark Avenue/Poindexter Avenue 0.68 B 0.69 B No No Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue 0.65 B 0.65 B No No Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road 0.70 B 0.71 C Yes No PM Peak Hour Moorpark Avenue/High Street 0.68 B 0.69 B No No Spring Road/High Street 0.72 C 0.72 C No No Moorpark Avenue/Poindexter Avenue 0.67 B 0.67 B No No Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue 0.68 B 0.69 B No No Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road 0.70 B 0.70 B No No
Notes: ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization, LOS = Level of Service Source: ATE 2019
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 107 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
As shown in Table 27, the study-area intersections would continue to operate at LOS C or better, meeting City of Moorpark thresholds. While the addition of project-generated traffic to the Spring Road/High Street study-area intersection would degrade the existing LOS by one level of service, the project would not generate project-specific impacts at the study-area intersection based on City of Moorpark thresholds because the intersection would operate acceptably in the LOS C range.
Cumulative (Existing plus Approved/Pending Projects) Conditions Cumulative traffic volumes were forecast for the study-area intersections assuming the development of the approved and pending projects located in the City of Moorpark and the immediate surrounding area that would add traffic to the study-area intersections. The list of developments was provided by City staff as part of their Quarterly Development Status Report for October 2018 (City of Moorpark 2018b). Trip generation estimates were developed for the cumulative projects using the rates published in the ITE, Trip Generation, 10th Edition. Table 28 summarizes the average daily, AM and PM peak hour trip generation for the cumulative projects.
108 Environmental Checklist Transportation
Table 28 Cumulative Development Projects Trip Generation Peak Hour Number Project Land Use Size ADT AM PM 1 Triliad Development Movie Studio 37 Acres 100 10 10 2 Pacific Communities SFR 283 Units 2,694 212 283 3 Essex Moorpark Apartments 200 Units 1,318 92 112 4 Spring Road, LLC Condos 95 Units 552 42 49 5 City Ventures SFR 110 Units 1,047 82 110 6 Oakmont Senior Housing Assisted Living 84 Beds 219 16 22 7 Birdsall Group, LLC SFR 21 Units 200 16 12 8 Aldersgate Senior Housing SFR 258 Units 1,468 90 125 Assisted Living 212 Beds 9 Moorpark Hospitality Hotel 108 Rooms 903 51 65 10 Grand Moorpark Condos 66 Units 383 29 34 11 John C. Chiu, FLP-N Condos 60 Units 349 26 31 12 AHA Scattered Sites Apartments 56 Units 418 26 31 13 Hitch Ranch SFR 235 Units Townhomes 295 Units 6,394 495 611 MFR 225 Units Church 30,000 SF 14 Moorpark 67/Rasmussen SFR 138 Units 1,303 102 137 15 A-B Properties Industrial 36 Acres 1,865 224 261 16 National Ready Mix Batch Plant 10 Acres 600 20 20 17 CEMEX Quarry N/A 980 276 148 19 Wayne J. Sand & Gravel Quarry N/A 504 92 34 20 Grimes Rock Quarry N/A 480 35 14 Total Trips 21,777 1,982 2,054 Note: The current cumulative trip generation estimate resulted in fewer trips than what was assumed in the traffic and circulation study for the Aldersgate Senior Living Project prepared by ATE in 2016. ADT = Average Daily Trip, SFR = Single-Family Residential, MFR = Multi-Family Residential, SF = Square-Feet Source: ATE 2019
The data presented in Table 28 indicate that the approved and pending projects would generate a total of 21,777 average daily trips, 1,982 AM peak hour trips and 2,054 PM peak hour trips. The traffic generated by the approved and pending projects was distributed and assigned to the study area intersections based on the location of each project, recent traffic studies, existing traffic patterns observed in the study area as well as a general knowledge of the population, employment and commercial centers in Moorpark, Ventura, Oxnard, Thousand Oaks, and Simi Valley. The Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project LOS for the study area intersections are shown below in Table 29.
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 109 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
Table 29 Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project AM and PM Peak Hour Levels of Service Cumulative Cumulative + Project LOS Change? Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS Change Impact AM Peak Hour Moorpark Avenue/High Street 0.80 C 0.81 D Yes Yes Spring Road/High Street 0.71 C 0.72 C No No Moorpark Avenue/Poindexter Avenue 0.73 C 0.74 C No No Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue 0.79 C 0.79 C No No Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road 0.86 D 0.86 D No No PM Peak Hour Moorpark Avenue/High Street 0.93 E 0.93 E No No Spring Road/High Street 0.80 C 0.80 C No No Moorpark Avenue/Poindexter Avenue 0.71 C 0.72 C No No Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue 0.76 C 0.77 C No No Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road 0.83 D 0.84 D No No
Notes: ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization, LOS = Level of Service Source: ATE 2019
The data presented in Table 29 indicates that the majority of the study area intersections would operate at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hour periods with cumulative and cumulative plus project traffic volumes, which meets the City's LOS C standard. The Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road intersection would operate at LOS D during the AM and PM peak hour periods under cumulative and cumulative plus project conditions. As a result, the project would not have a significant impact to this intersection. The Moorpark Avenue/High Street intersection would operate in the LOS E range with or without the addition of project trips during the PM peak hour. However, during the AM peak hour, the addition of project-generated traffic to the Moorpark Avenue/High Street study area intersection would degrade the LOS from LOS C to LOS D, and thus the project would have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative impact at the intersection based on City of Moorpark thresholds. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant, and mitigation is required to reduce impacts to less than significant. The project would be required to pay an Area of Contribution (AOC) Fee and a Citywide Traffic Mitigation Fee. The AOC and Citywide Traffic Mitigation fees would be applied towards programmed improvements that the City has identified for the Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road, Los Angeles Avenue/Moorpark Avenue, and Moorpark Avenue/High Street intersections. These improvements are identified within the City of Moorpark Department of Public Works Seven Year Capital Improvement Plan (FY 2015/2016 through FY 2021/2022) and would be funded by these fee contributions. With the improvements discussed below under TRA-1, the Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road intersection would improve from LOS D to LOS C during AM and PM peak hours, and the Moorpark Avenue/High Street intersection would improve from LOS D to LOS B in the AM peak hour and from LOS E to LOS C in the PM peak hour. Therefore, with mitigation, cumulative traffic impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
110 Environmental Checklist Transportation
Mitigation Measure
TRA-1 Area of Contribution (AOC) Fees The project would be required to pay the applicable AOC and Citywide Traffic Impact Mitigation fees based upon the level of traffic added within the Los Angeles Avenue and Moorpark Avenue corridor. The project’s monetary contribution shall be based on its percent contribution to traffic at the impacted intersections, which is 1.79 percent for the Moorpark Avenue/High Street intersection, 0.35 percent for the Spring Road/High Street intersection, and 0.61 percent for the Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road intersection. As part of the City’s plan to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts, the City has identified and programmed the following additional improvements for the Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road and Moorpark Avenue/High Street intersections that would mitigate cumulative impacts: ▪ Los Angeles Avenue/Spring Road Intersection: Add an additional through lane on the eastbound and westbound approaches. ▪ Moorpark Avenue/High Street Intersection: Add an additional through lane on the southbound approach and provide a left-turn lane, through lane, and right-turn lane on the northbound approach.
The project applicant shall pay the AOC and Citywide Traffic Impact Mitigation fees prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first residential building.
Transit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities The proposed project would involve construction of 91 residential units and 15,018 sf of commercial space. The Moorpark Metrolink Station is adjacent to the southern boundary. Development of the proposed project would not disrupt access to the Metrolink Station and would encourage new residents of the proposed project to utilize the public transit. As discussed under Project Description, although new sidewalks and streetscape landscaping are proposed along High Street adjacent to the northern boundary of the project site, it is likely that portions of the existing sidewalk would need to be temporarily closed during construction activities. However, access to the existing Metrolink train platform would remain open during construction by allowing pedestrian access along properties immediately to the east because these properties currently provide direct access and vehicle parking for the Metrolink train platform. In addition, during construction of the proposed project, activities would be restricted to the project site and would not interfere with roadway traffic or use of the railroad. The project would also be subject to standard conditions of approval, which require the use of flagmen, temporary signage, and traffic calming measures, if necessary, during temporary construction activities. All construction equipment would be stored on-site and would also not block the roadway. Therefore, the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bikeways, or pedestrian facilities, and would not otherwise substantially reduce the performance or safety features of such facilities. No impact would occur. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 111 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Section 15064.3(b) of the CEQA Guidelines describes criteria for analyzing transportation impacts. Depending on the type of project, different thresholds of significance are applicable. Section 15064.3(b)(1) applies to land use projects, including the proposed project: “Vehicle miles traveled exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact. Generally, projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. Projects that decrease vehicle miles traveled in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.”
The project would generate a total vehicle miles travelled (VMT) of 2,206,014 annual miles, or 6,044 daily miles (Appendix C). The project is located south of High Street, adjacent to Amtrak’s Moorpark Station and within 300 feet of Moorpark Metrolink Bust Station. Amtrak provides service to major cities in California (including Santa Barbara, Ventura, Oxnard, Los Angeles, Anaheim, and Riverside) and other states (including Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada) (Amtrak 2019). Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner and California Coastal Routes provide service to the Moorpark Amtrak Station 11 times each day (Amtrak 2018). The Metrolink Bus Station is along the Ventura County Line, which operates between Ventura and Los Angeles Union Station. The Ventura County Line provides service to the Moorpark Station 16 times per day, Monday through Friday (Metrolink 2018). Therefore, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1), because the project site is located within 0.5 miles of a high quality transit corridor the project would have a less than significant impact. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The project does not have any hazardous design features such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections. The project is compatible with surrounding uses. The project’s circulation system will be reviewed by the City’s emergency response personnel and the City’s Public Works Department to ensure that ingress and egress widths are sufficient and that the proposed circulation system would not interfere with an emergency response access route. Impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
112 Environmental Checklist Tribal Cultural Resources 18 Tribal Cultural Resources Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in a Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or □ ■ □ □ b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Cod Section 2024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significant of the resource to a California Native American tribe. □ ■ □ □
As of July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 52 of 2014 (AB 52) was enacted and expands CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). It further states that the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3). PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is: 1. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or 2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 113 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources. The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency. These tribes include the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians, and the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation. On April 15, 2019, the City of Moorpark distributed AB 52 consultation letters for the proposed project, including project information, location map, and contact information, to six Native American contacts. The Native American contacts provided with an AB 52 consultation letter via certified mail include the following list of recipients: ▪ Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians ▪ Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians ▪ Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians ▪ Coastal Band of Chumash Indians ▪ San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
Under AB 52, Native American tribes have 30 days to respond and request further project information and formal consultation. All letters were received by April 22, 2019. Therefore, the consultation request period closed on May 22, 2019. The City of Moorpark did not receive any requests for consultation for the project and was not notified of any tribal cultural resources that are present on the project site. However, the City did receive recommendations from the Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians to retain a full-time Native American monitor and archaeologist on-site during all ground-disturbing activities and to perform an extensive Phase I in the Area of Potential Effect. a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 2024.1? As discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, the project site is in an urbanized area and has been previously disturbed in conjunction with construction of the granary, industrial buildings, and paved surfaces. As stated above, the City of Moorpark did not receive any requests for consultation nor notification of any tribal cultural resources on the project site. Although it is not anticipated that intact tribal cultural resources are present in the project site, there is the potential for the recovery of buried cultural materials during project construction activities. Upon compliance with Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 in Section 5, Cultural Resources, and Mitigation Measure TCR-1 below, potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level by providing a process for evaluating and, as necessary, avoiding impacts to any identified resources. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
114 Environmental Checklist Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure
TCR-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources During ground-disturbing activities, an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) shall monitor excavation and ground-disturbing activities within native soils that have not been previously disturbed. If cultural resources are encountered during excavation and/or ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must halt and a Native American representative who is ancestrally related to the project area must be contacted immediately to evaluate the find and consult with the City of Moorpark and the archaeologist as to the treatment of the find which may determine additional measures to avoid or reduce impacts to the resource are required. These additional measures to avoid or reduce impacts shall be determined on a case by case basis and approved by the City’s Community Development Director. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 115 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
This page intentionally left blank.
116 Environmental Checklist Utilities and Service Systems
19 Utilities and Service Systems Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? □ □ ■ □ b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? □ □ ■ □ c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? □ □ ■ □ d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? □ □ ■ □ e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? □ □ ■ □ a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 117 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
Wastewater Generation A significant impact to wastewater facilities may occur if a project would: ▪ Discharge wastewater, whose content exceeds the regulatory limits established by the governing agency; ▪ Increase water consumption or wastewater generation to such a degree that the capacity of facilities currently serving the project site would be exceeded; or ▪ Increase wastewater flows such that a sewer or treatment plant is constrained or would become constrained.
The Ventura County Water and Sanitation Department (VCWSD) operates and maintains water and wastewater infrastructure for the City, which is located in Ventura County Waterworks District (VCWWD) No. 1. The Moorpark Water Reclamation Facility (MWRF), located along California State Route 118 just west of the City of Moorpark, serves the project site. The MWRF currently receives an average of 2.0 million gallons per day and is designed to treat up to 5 million gallons per day (mgd) per day (VCWWD 2016). Therefore, the MWRF has an available surplus capacity of approximately 3 million gallons per day. Table 30 shows that the project would produce an estimated 23,002 gallons of wastewater per day, which would be within the available surplus capacity at the MWRF. All wastewater from the proposed project would be treated according to requirements of the NPDES permit authorized by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). On April 15, 2019, VCWSD provided written correspondence confirming sanitary sewer service would be available for the proposed project (Appendix J). In addition, prior to any future construction activities, building permits would be issued by VCWWD to allow the required connections to the wastewater system pursuant to the approved construction drawings. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater would be less than significant.
Table 30 Average Daily Wastewater Generation Wastewater Generation Rate1 Total Wastewater Generation Unit Type Quantity (gallons per unit) (gallons per day)
Studio 18 units 80/dwelling unit 1,440
1-Bedroom 26 units 120/dwelling unit 3,120
2-Bedroom 39 units 160/dwelling unit 6,240
3-Bedroom 8 units 200/dwelling unit 1,600
Retail 8,400 sf 80/1000 gsf 672
Restaurants2 331 seats 30/seat 9,930
Total Proposed Project 23,002
gsf = gross square feet 1 Source: City of Los Angeles 2006, Exhibit M.2-12 2 Estimated based on the proposed square footage for the restaurants (6,618 sf). Specifically, it was assumed that the restaurant square footage would be 60 percent dining area and 40 percent food preparation area. An industry standard of one seat per 12 sf of dining area was also assumed (Total Food Service 2013).
118 Environmental Checklist Utilities and Service Systems
Water Supply A significant impact would occur if the project would increase water consumption or wastewater generation to such a degree that the capacity of facilities currently serving the project site would be exceeded or that new water sources would need to be identified. The VCWWD No. 1 provides water within the City limits. VCWWD No. 1 water sources in 2015 included Metropolitan imported water (approximately 76 percent), local groundwater (approximately 18 percent), and recycled water (approximately 6 percent, VCWWD 2016). As of 2015, the VCWWD No. 1 supplied water to 10,944 connections. The VCWWD No. 1 has planned improvement projects, including the Moorpark Desalter Project, a groundwater production and treatment system with a potential capacity of 5,000 acre-feet per year (AFY), which is in the design phase, and the expansion of the MWRP’s tertiary treatment capacity for recycled water production to 2,200 AFY by 2040, which is in the construction phase (VCWWD 2016, County of Ventura n.d.). Based on information provided by the project applicant, the project would use approximately 2,000 gallons of water per day during the demolition, site preparation, and grading phases. Over this 30- day period, water would be provided via water truck and the total volume of water would be approximately 60,000 gallons, or 0.2 acre-foot. Water would be drawn from a temporary construction meter attached to the nearest fire hydrant. In addition, Aaccording to the CalEEMod modeling prepared for the project, the project would increase water demand by approximately 11,295,898 gallons per year or 34.7 acre-feet per year (AFY) during project operation (Appendix C).
Table 31 Multiple Dry Years Water Supply and Demand 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Total Demand (AFY) 12,636 13,104 13,472 13,798 14,138 Total Supply 13,149 14,143 14,442 14,606 14,918 Difference 513 1,039 970 808 780
Source: VCWD 2016, Table 7-4
The VCWWD projects that if new local water supply projects are constructed as planned in the Calleguas jurisdiction, a surplus of water supplies will be available even in the multiple dry year scenario. Total demand in Table 31 was calculated based on VCWWD’s service area population, which is expected to increase from 35,782 in 2015 to 45,000 in 2040 (VCWWD 2016). As discussed above under Section 14, Population and Housing, the project would not generate population growth exceeding SCAG population forecasts. Therefore, the project’s population and associated water demand increase has been accounted for in the UWMP. On April 15, 2019, VCWWD No.1 provided written correspondence confirming water would be available for the project (Appendix J). In addition, the project would be required to comply with the permanent water conservation measures contained in Part 1 – Section L of the Ventura County Waterworks Districts’ Rules and Regulations for District Nos. 1, 16, 17, 19, and 38. These measures include installing water-saving devices and limiting landscape irrigation (VCWWD n.d.). In addition, the project would be required to comply with all provisions of the City of Moorpark’s water efficient landscape ordinance (MMC 15.23.010). Therefore, demand for water would not require new water supply entitlements and/or require the expansion or construction of water treatment facilities beyond those already considered in the VCWWD No. 1’s 2015 UWMP. Despite the recent drought conditions, adequate water supplies are
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 119 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development available to serve the project. Water supply and infrastructure impacts would be less than significant.
Stormwater A significant impact to stormwater facilities may occur if the volume of stormwater runoff would increase to a level exceeding the capacity of the storm drain system serving a project site, resulting in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities. As described under Project Description, the project includes installation of on-site stormwater facilities, including pervious paving/landscaping; storm drain signage; treatment control BMPs such as planter boxes, bio- retention areas, biofiltration basins, and “StormTreat” linear stormwater filtration devices; and 175 feet of oversized 48-inch drain pipe in the western drainage area and 65 feet of 36-inch pipe within the eastern drainage area. These drain pipes would detain and accumulate stormwater runoff, then release runoff at various metered rates that meet City and County criteria for detained flow release depending on the size of the storm event. As discussed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, these features would eliminate the potential to adversely affect the local storm drain system. Accordingly, potential impacts to stormwater drainage facilities would be less than significant.
Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications A significant impact to electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities may occur if the demand for services exceeds the capacity of local providers. As described in Section 6, Energy, the project would require approximately 2,452 MMBtu/yr of electricity and approximately 2,816 MMtu/yr of natural gas. Electricity would be provided to the project site by SCE, and natural gas would be provided by SoCalGas. Telecommunications services would be provided by AT&T, Spectrum, Viasat, or other providers, at the discretion of future tenants. Telecommunications are generally available in the project area, and facility upgrades would not likely be necessary. SCE’s Big Creek/Ventura local capacity area includes the project site, and has an excess annual capacity of 2,459 MW (8,290 MMBtu), which is more than enough to accommodate the electricity requirements of the project (SCE 2018b). For 2019, the estimated surplus of natural gas capacity is 794 MMcf/day (823,378 MMBtu/day), which is more than enough to accommodate the natural gas requirements of the project (SoCalGas 2018). According to SoCalGas, several medium pressure distribution service lines that intersect the project site; however, at this time the project applicant does not anticipate the need to relocate any on-site medium pressure gas lines as part of site development. If SoCalGas determines that relocation is necessary during their review of the project’s natural gas service request, the project applicant would coordinate with SoCalGas Northwest Distribution Utility Division to relocate the lines in accordance with the SoCalGas Natural Gas Service Guidelines (2020). As discussed under Description of Project, the project includes installation of dry utilities as part of site improvements as well as off-site connections to existing dry utilities on or adjacent to the project. Improvements to existing facilities or the provision of new electricity and natural gas facilities is not anticipated. The project would have a less than significant impact on local electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications providers. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
120 Environmental Checklist Utilities and Service Systems
A significant impact may occur if a project were to increase solid waste generation to a degree such that the existing and projected landfill capacity would be insufficient to accommodate the additional solid waste or if a project would generate solid waste that was not disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. To comply with AB 939, the City must divert at least 50 percent of its annual waste. In addition, AB 341 sets a 75 percent recycling goal for California by 2020. The City has achieved a landfill diversion rate of at least 50 percent (City of Moorpark n.d.). AB 341 also requires businesses generating more than four cubic yards of solid waste to recycle and requires owners of multi-family housing with five or more units to provide recycling for their tenants. For projects valued at over $500,000 or that require a demolition permit, the Moorpark Municipal Code Section 8.36 requires the preparation of a construction and demolition materials management plan that details how the project will divert or recycle at least 65 percent of construction and demolition material. Construction and demolition waste generated by the project must be taken to a facility approved by the City of Moorpark for the diversion of construction and demolition materials within the County of Ventura (City of Moorpark n.d.). In addition, the project will likely be required to comply with AB 341 and AB 1826 if future commercial tenants of the project generate a quantity of solid waste that meets applicable thresholds. AB 341 mandates commercial recycling for any business that generates four cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week, and AB 1826 mandates commercial organics recycling for any business that generates four or more cubic yards of commercial organic waste per week beginning January 1, 2019 (City of Moorpark 2016). The project’s solid waste would be handled by private waste collection services. Solid waste from the City of Moorpark is taken to the Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center (SVLRC), which currently receives approximately 5,000 tons of solid waste per day and has a permitted daily throughput of 9,250 tons per day (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery [CalRecycle] 2018a, 2018b). As of February 1, 2017, the SVLRC had a remaining capacity of 88,300,000 cubic yards and an estimated closure date of January 31, 2052 (CalRecycle 2018a). The project would produce an estimated 2,040 pounds, or approximately one ton, of solid waste per day, as shown in Table 32. This estimate is conservative since it does not factor in any recycling or waste diversion programs. This quantity would constitute a 0.02 percent increase in daily throughput at the SVLRC and would not exceed the SVLRC’s permitted daily capacity. The project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, such as AB 939, AB 341, the County Integrated Waste Management Summary Plan, and the City’s recycling program. Additionally, there is adequate landfill capacity in the region to accommodate project- generated waste. Therefore, impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant impact.
Table 32 Average Daily Solid Waste Generation Solid Waste Generation Rate1 Total Solid Waste Generation Land Use Quantity (pounds per day) (pounds per day)
Residential 91 households (units) 12.23/household 1,113
Commercial 88 employees 10.53/employee 927
Total Proposed Project 2,040
1 Source: City of Los Angeles 2006, Section M.3
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 121 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
This page intentionally left blank.
122 Environmental Checklist Wildfire
20 Wildfire Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? □ □ □ ■ b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? □ □ ■ □ c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? □ □ ■ □ d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? □ □ ■ □ a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? While the project site is not within a state responsibility area or very high fire hazard severity zone, it is located within 50 feet of a very high fire hazard severity zone (CAL FIRE 2010). The County’s Emergency Preparedness Guide provides basic emergency information for residents of the County. The project would be required to comply with applicable City codes and regulations pertaining to emergency response and evacuation plans maintained by the County police department and fire departments. No roads would be permanently closed as a result of the construction or operation of the proposed project, and no structures would be developed that could potentially impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The City also has a grid pattern of streets within the downtown area so at no point would any parcel or building be rendered inaccessible. The proposed project would be accessed via existing driveways along High Street. These driveways would provide sufficient ingress/egress for
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 123 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development vehicles, trucks, and heavy duty trucks that would frequent the project site. As such, implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with existing emergency evacuation plans or emergency response plans in the area. NO IMPACT b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? The project site is relatively flat, with hills located near the site to the north of Everett Street. In the vicinity of the project site, wind blows southeast (NOAA 2018). Due to the presence of nearby gentle slopes and wind direction, which could carry fires toward the site from very high fire hazard severity zones to the north of the site, construction on the project site would expose new residents to wildfire impacts. However, building code fire safety requirements and DTSP and General Plan policies would require the provision of fire suppression and alarm systems, and payment of fire protection facility fees, which would aid in preventing the spread of wildfires. Therefore, compliance with these policies would ensure this impact is less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? The project is located within an urbanized area and would involve the development of the majority of the project site with structures. No new roads would be constructed and fuel breaks would not be required. The project will comply with building code and fire safety requirements, as well as DTSP and General Plan policies. Construction BMPs, such as ensuring equipment has spark arresters installed, would ensure temporary construction does not exacerbate fire risks in the area. This impact would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? The project would introduce new residents to the project site, which is adjacent to a very high fire hazard severity zone. As discussed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, development of the proposed project would introduce more impervious surfaces, which would increase the volume of stormwater runoff from the site. This increase in runoff volume could also increase the rate of surface runoff and flooding on- or off-site. However, landscaping of the project area would help reduce off-site flows and reduce runoff volumes and rates. Furthermore, the project would comply with all NPDES requirements, Ventura County’s MS4 Permit, and the City’s runoff requirements and would therefore not significantly increase the rate of surface runoff and flooding on- or off-site. The project site is separated from the gently-sloped hills north of the site by existing urban development; therefore, post-fire slope instability resulting in landslides or flooding would not be
124 Environmental Checklist Wildfire likely to result in impacts to development on the project site. Additionally, there are no creeks or drainage systems within the project site that may be affected by post-fire flooding or landslides. Further, the gently-sloping hillside north of the site has not been identified as a landslide area (City of Moorpark 2001, Figure 4-3). LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 125 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
This page intentionally left blank.
126 Environmental Checklist Mandatory Findings of Significance 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Does the project: a. Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? □ ■ □ □ b. Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? □ ■ □ □ c. Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? □ □ ■ □ a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The project site is located in an urbanized area of the City and has been previously disturbed in conjunction with on-site development. The project site contains a former granary, industrial buildings, associated paved surfaces, and vacant land. As described in Section 4, Biological Resources, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 would address potential impacts to nesting birds. As noted under Section 5, Cultural Resources, and Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, no historical, archeological, or tribal resources were identified on-site. Nevertheless, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 and TCR-1 would reduce impacts to
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 127 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development unanticipated cultural resources to a less than significant level by providing a process for evaluating and, as necessary, avoiding impacts to any identified resources during construction. Impacts would be less than significant with the mitigation incorporated for biological, cultural, and tribal resources. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? As described in the discussion of environmental checklist Sections 1 through 19, the project would have no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated, with respect to all environmental issues. No known planned or pending projects are located in the immediate site vicinity that would substantially contribute to any additive effects in conjunction with the project with respect to issues such as aesthetics, land use, and construction- related impacts (i.e. traffic, air quality, and noise). The project’s contribution to cumulative regional and global impacts with respect to such issues as air quality, climate change, and noise would not be substantial due to the project size, location, and design. Some of the other resource areas (agricultural and mineral) were determined to have no impact in comparison to existing conditions. Therefore, the project would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to these issues. In addition, as discussed in Section 17, Transportation/Traffic, the TIA analyzes potential cumulative traffic impacts due to the development of the approved and pending projects located in the City of Moorpark and the immediate surrounding area (see Table 28 for cumulative projects list). The resulting cumulative traffic impacts were found to be less than significant with Mitigation Measure TRA-1 incorporated. As such, with implementation of the mitigation measures included in this Initial Study and compliance with applicable rules and regulations, cumulative impacts would be less than significant (not cumulatively considerable). LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? In general, impacts to human beings are associated with air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise impacts. As detailed in analyses for air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise, the proposed project would not result, either directly or indirectly, in adverse hazards related to air quality, hazardous materials or noise. Compliance with applicable rules and regulations and recommended mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts on human beings to a less than significant level. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
128 References
References
Bibliography Amtrak. 2018. Pacific Surfliner. October 8, 2018. https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/timeta bles/Pacific-Surfliner-Schedule-W31-100818.pdf (accessed December 2019). ____. 2019. Moorpark, California: Amtrak/Metrolink Station. https://www.amtrak.com/stations/mpk (accessed December 2019). Archaeological Research, Inc. 1977. Preliminary Cultural Resource Survey and Potential Impact Assessment for Thirteen Areas in southern Ventura County, California (An Archaeological Record Search and Evaluation). March 15, 1977. Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE). 2019. Moorpark Railroad Depot Project City of Moorpark, California – Revised Traffic and Parking Study. December 10, 2019. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. ____. 2015. Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standards – PM10. Last modified: December 2015. https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/2015/state_pm10.pdf (accessed December 2019). ____. 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf ____. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf (accessed December 2019). ____. 2018a. “California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory – 2018 Edition. Last modified: July 11, 2018. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm (accessed December 2019). ____. 2018b. “2020 Business-as-Usual (BAU) Emissions Projection – 2014 Edition”. Last modified: June 22, 2018. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/bau.htm (accessed December 2019). ____. n.d. Top 4 Summary: Select Pollutant, Years, & Area. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php (accessed December 2019). California Department of Conservation (CDOC). 2015. Ventura County Williamson Act FY 2015/2016. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Ventura_15_16_WA.pdf (accessed December 2019). ____. 2016. California Important Farmland Finder. Last modified: 2016. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed December 2019). California Department of Finance (CDOF). 2019a. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011 – 2019 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Last modified: May 2019. http://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ (accessed December 2019).
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 129 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
____. 2019b. P-1 Total Estimated and Projected Population for California and Counties: July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2060 in 1-year Increments. Last modified: March 2019. http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/projections/ (accessed December 2019). California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017. “California Regional Conservation Plans.” Last modified: October 2017. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline (accessed December 2019). California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2010. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA. October 6, 2010. [map]. Tabular digital data and vector digital data. CAL FIRE. Sacramento, CA. http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fhsz_maps/FHSZ/ventura/Moorpark.pdf (accessed December 2019). California Department of Public Health. 2016. Yearly Summaries of Selected General Communicable Diseases in California, 2011-2015. April 26, 2016. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/YearlySum mRptsofSelectedGenCommDisinCA2011-2015.pdf#page=38 (accessed December 2019). California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2018a. “Facility/Site Summary Details: Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center (56-AA-0007).” http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/56-AA-0007/Detail/ (accessed December 2019). ____. 2018b. “Facility/Site Inspection Listings: Simi Valley Landfill & Recycling Center (56-AA-0007).” April 10, 2018. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/56-AA- 0007/Inspection/ (accessed December 2019). California Department of Transportation. 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Last modified: September 7, 2011. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/ (accessed December 2019). California Energy Commission. 2018. “2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.” March 2018. https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_St andards_FAQ.pdf (accessed December 2019). California Geological Survey (CGS). 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces, Note 36. California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 1999. General Waste Discharge Requirements for Biosolids Land Application Draft Statewide Program EIR – Appendix G. Background Information on Acoustics. Accessed April 2018 at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/biosolids/deir/appendices/app_g. pdf (accessed December 2019). Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. 2017. Midpoint at 237 Loading Dock Noise Study. Available: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/28907 (accessed December 2019). Dibblee, T.W., and Ehrenspeck, H.E. 1992. Geologic map of the Moorpark quadrangle, Ventura County, California. Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-40, scale 1:24,000.
130 References
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1974. The Audible Landscape: A Manual for Highway Noise and Land Use. November 1974. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ENVIRonment/noise/noise_compatible_planning/federal_appro ach/audible_landscape/al04.cfm (accessed December 2019). ____. 2006. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. (FHWAHEP-06-015; DOT-VNTSC-FHWA- 06-02). https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/ (accessed December 2019). ____. 2017. “Effective Nosie Control During Nighttime Construction.” February 5, 2017. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/wz/workshops/accessible/Schexnayder_paper.htm (accessed December 2019). Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf (accessed December 2019). Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency. 2017. Preliminary Draft (Subject to Change) Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Las Posas Valley Basin. November 2017. http://www.fcgma.org/images/Las_Posas_GSP_OPT.pdf (accessed December 2019). Gordon Bricken & Associates. 1996. Acoustical Analysis Addendum to the Adopted EIR Disneyland Resort City of Anaheim. Table 16: Reference Parking Lot Levels, p. 38. February 26, 1996. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December 2018. http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf (accessed December 2019). Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. 2009. Wal-Mart Expansion, Williamson Ranch Plaza (Antioch, California) Environmental Noise Assessment. Available: http://www.ci.antioch.ca.us/CityGov/CommDev/PlanningDivision/docs/Walmart/DEIR- VOLII-APPENDICES-C-H/Appendix%20G%20Noise%20Assessment.pdf (accessed December 2019). Los Angeles, City of. 2006. L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide. Metrolink. 2018. Timetable – Effective October 8, 2018 (All Lines). October 8, 2018. https://www.metrolinktrains.com/globalassets/schedules/1st-all-lines-timetable-final.pdf (accessed December 2019). Moorpark, City of. 1986. Open Space, Conservation & Recreation Element of the City of Moorpark General Plan. August 1986. https://www.moorparkca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/172/OSCAR-Element (accessed December 2019). ____. 1992. Circulation Element of the City of Moorpark General Plan. May 13, 1992. https://www.moorparkca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/166/Circulation-Element (accessed December 2019). ____. 1998a. Final Mitigated Negative Declaration – City of Moorpark Downtown Specific Plan. October 1998.
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 131 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
____. 1998b. City of Moorpark General Plan Noise Element. https://www.moorparkca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/171/Noise-Element (accessed December 2019). ____. 2001. Moorpark 2000-2005 Safety Element. March 2001. ____. 2006a. Downtown Specific Plan. November 1, 2006. ____. 2006b. California Pepper Trees Maintenance Plan. https://www.moorparkca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3710/2006-Maintenance-Plan (accessed December 2019). ____. 2008. Zoning Map. September 17, 2008. https://www.moorparkca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/175/Zoning-Map---Large (accessed December 2019). ____. 2016. “Commercial and Multi-Family Trash Service.” January 1, 2016. http://moorparkca.gov/748/Commercial-and-Multi-Family-Trash-Servic (accessed December 2019). ____. 2018a. Moorpark Municipal Code (MMC). https://qcode.us/codes/moorpark/ (accessed December 2019). ____. 2018b. “Quarterly Status Report for October 2018.” https://www.moorparkca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/81/Quarterly-Status-Report?bidId= (accessed December 2019). ____. n.d. “City of Moorpark Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan.” http://www.moorparkca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6099/CD-Plan-Packet---2017 (accessed December 2019). ____. n.d. “Solid Waste Division.” https://www.moorparkca.gov/139/Solid-Waste (accessed December 2019). Morton, D.M., and Miller, F.K. 2006. Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' quadrangles, California. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-2006-1217, scale 1:62,500. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2019. U.S. Wind Climatology. Department of Commerce. https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/dataset/average-wind- speeds-map-viewer (accessed December 2019). Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS Plan). http://scagrtpscs.net/Pages/FINAL2016RTPSCS.aspx (accessed December 2019). Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Appendix - Demographics & Growth Forecast. April 7, 2016.
132 References
Southern California Edison (SCE). 2012. 2012 Corporate Responsibility & Sustainability. https://www1.sce.com/wps/wcm/connect/68145014-2eba-40c2-8587- 6482ce056977/CRR_08202013.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&ContentCache=NONE (accessed December 2019). ____. 2018a. 2017 Power Content Label. July 2018. https://www.sce.com/sites/default/files/inline- files/2017PCL_0.pdf (accessed December 2019). ____. 2018b. 2019 Local Capacity Technical Analysis: Final Report and Study Results. May 15, 2018. http://www.caiso.com/Documents/Final2019LocalCapacityTechnicalReport.pdf (accessed December 2019). Southern California Gas (SoCalGas). 2018. 2018 California Gas Report Redacted Workpapers. https://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/documents/cgr/2018CGR_SoCalGAs_Redacted_Wor kpapers_revised_8_13_18.pdf (accessed December 2019). ____. 2020. Natural Gas Service Guidebook. January 2020. https://www.socalgas.com/documents/construction/GasServiceGuidebook.pdf (accessed March 2020). South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008. Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. October 2008. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa- significance-thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf (accessed December 2019). Total Food Service. 2013. “How to Create a Restaurant Floor Plan.” Last modified: July 25, 2013. https://totalfood.com/how-to-create-a-restaurant-floor-plan/ (accessed December 2019). Union Pacific Corporation. 2013. 2013 Investor Fact Book. https://www.up.com/investors/attachments/factbooks/2013/fact_book.pdf (accessed December 2019). United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper. Last modified: May 8, 2018. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html (accessed December 2019). United States Green Building Council. 2008. “Building Area per Employee by Business Type.” Last modified: May 13, 2008. https://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs4111.pdf (accessed December 2019). Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD). 2003. Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines. October 2003. http://www.vcapcd.org/pubs/Planning/VCAQGuidelines.pdf (accessed December 2019). _____. 2011. Greenhouse Gas Thresholds of Significance Options for Land Use Development Projects in Ventura County. November 8, 2011. ___. 2017. 2016 Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan. February 14, 2017. http://www.vcapcd.org/pubs/Planning/AQMP/2016/Final/Final-2016-Ventura-County- AQMP.pdf (accessed December 2019). Ventura, County of. 2005. Gabbert & Walnut Canyon Channels Flood Control Deficiency Study. ____. 2011. Ventura County General Plan Resources Appendix. June 28, 2011. https://docs.vcrma.org/images/pdf/planning/plans/General-Plan-Resources-Appendix.pdf (accessed December 2019).
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 133 City of Moorpark High Street Station Mixed Use Development
____. 2016. Ventura County Historical Landmarks & Points of Interest. May 2016. https://docs.vcrma.org/images/pdf/planning/programs/chb/Points_of_Interest.pdf (accessed December 2019). ____. 2018. Ventura County Technical Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Control Measures – Manual Update 2011, Errata Update 2018. June 29, 2018. http://www.vcstormwater.org/index.php/publications/manuals/tech-guide-manual (accessed December 2019). ____. n.d. “Water and Sanitation Services – Engineering & Development.” http://vcpublicworks.org/water-sanitation-department/water-and-sanitation-services (accessed December 2019). Ventura County Fire Department (VCFD). 2016. 2016 District Snapshot. http://vcfd.org/images/annual-reports/District_Snapshot_2016.pdf (accessed December 2019). Ventura County Waterworks District (VCWWD). 2016. Ventura County Waterworks District No. 1 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 14, 2016. http://pwaportal.ventura.org/WSD/Home/docs/2016-11- 29%20APPVD%20FINAL%20VCWWD%20No%20%201%202015%20Urban%20Water%20Ma nagement%20Plan.pdf (accessed December 2019). ____. n.d. Rules and Regulations Districts Nos. 1, 16, 17, 19, & 38. http://pwaportal.ventura.org/WSD/Home/docs/R&Rs/Rules&Regulations_WWD1,16,17,19, %2038_Combined_BoardApproved_20180213.pdf (accessed December 2019). Ventura Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). 2018. City of Moorpark Municipal Service Review. http://www.ventura.lafco.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/Moorpark-MSR-Resolution- 2018-02-21reduced.pdf (accessed December 2019). Walker Consultants. 2019. Downtown Moorpark Parking Study. December 30, 2019. https://www.moorparkca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/10125/Downtown-Parking- Study?bidId= (accessed January 2020). Yerkes, R. F., and R. H. Campbell. 2005. Preliminary geologic map of the Los Angeles 30´ x 60´ quadrangle, southern California: United States Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-97- 254, scale 1:24,000. List of Preparers Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this IS-MND under contract to Daly Group Inc. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control are listed below.
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC. Joe Power, AICP, Principal Lexi Journey, Senior Environmental Planner Annaliese Miller, Associate Environmental Planner Katherine Green, Associate Planner Aileen Mahoney, Associate Planner Heather Clifford, Associate Paleontologist Jessica DeBusk, Principal Investigator, Paleontologist
134 References
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 135